| Page Range | 6107-6449 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 6141 - Auction of Cross-Service FM Translator Construction Permits Scheduled for May 15, 2018; Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 99 | |
| 83 FR 6172 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 6133 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex; Framework Adjustment 4 | |
| 83 FR 6207 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application-Continuum of Care Registration | |
| 83 FR 6209 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agencies Service Areas Solicitation of Comments | |
| 83 FR 6208 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Fee or Roster Personnel (Appraisers and Inspectors) Designation and Appraisal Reports | |
| 83 FR 6176 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Recordkeeping Requirements for Producers, Registrants and Applicants of Pesticides and Pesticide Devices Under Section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); EPA ICR Number 0143.13, OMB Control Number 2070-0028 | |
| 83 FR 6244 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
| 83 FR 6175 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Background Checks for Contractor Employees (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 6217 - Faster Administration of Science and Technology Education and Research (FASTER) Community of Practice (CoP) | |
| 83 FR 6200 - Hospira, Inc. et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 44 New Drug Applications and 158 Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Correction | |
| 83 FR 6192 - Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals LLC; Withdrawal of Approval of an Abbreviated New Drug Application for PEMOLINE Tablets, 18.75 Milligrams, 37.5 Milligrams, and 75 Milligrams | |
| 83 FR 6205 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 6188 - Orthopaedic Sensing, Measuring, and Advanced Reporting Technology Devices; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 6199 - Request for Nominations on the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 6217 - Large Scale Networking (LSN)-Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination (MAGIC) Team | |
| 83 FR 6215 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
| 83 FR 6125 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turboprop Engines | |
| 83 FR 6152 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Special Management Zones for 13 New Jersey Artificial Reefs | |
| 83 FR 6214 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Second Amendment to Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 6212 - Alaska Native Claims Selection | |
| 83 FR 6213 - Alaska Native Claims Selection | |
| 83 FR 6161 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 92-Harrison County, Mississippi; Authorization of Production Activity; Vision Technologies Marine, Inc.; (Ocean-Going Vessels); Pascagoula, Mississippi | |
| 83 FR 6161 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 23-Buffalo, New York; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Panasonic Eco Solutions Solar New York America Subzone 23E (Solar Panels/Modules); Buffalo, New York | |
| 83 FR 6160 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 123-Denver, Colorado; Authorization of Production Activity; Lockheed Martin Corporation Space Systems Company (Satellites and Other Space Craft); Littleton, Colorado | |
| 83 FR 6161 - Approval of Subzone Status; Ackerman North America LLC/dba Amann USA; Broomfield, Colorado | |
| 83 FR 6160 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 281 Under Alternative Site Framework; Miami, Florida | |
| 83 FR 6160 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 19 Under Alternative Site Framework; Omaha, Nebraska | |
| 83 FR 6242 - Virginia Electric and Power Company, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, North Anna Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
| 83 FR 6196 - Proposal To Refuse To Approve a New Drug Application for Oxycodone Hydrochloride Immediate-Release Oral Capsules, 5 Milligrams, 15 Milligrams, and 30 Milligrams; Opportunity for a Hearing | |
| 83 FR 6201 - Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria | |
| 83 FR 6163 - Certain Steel Nails From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 6148 - Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems | |
| 83 FR 6306 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From TowMate, LLC | |
| 83 FR 6215 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6304 - Railroad Cost Recovery Procedures-Productivity Adjustment | |
| 83 FR 6185 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 6303 - Railroad Cost of Capital-2017 | |
| 83 FR 6309 - Inventory of U.S.-Flag Launch Barges; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 6247 - Board Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6247 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records | |
| 83 FR 6136 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6165 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Financial Management Survey | |
| 83 FR 6159 - National Sunshine Week Public Event | |
| 83 FR 6210 - U.S. Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery and Interstate Commerce Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 6166 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 83 FR 6311 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Notice of Change in Student Status | |
| 83 FR 6169 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Tiered Environmental Impact Statement for the New York New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study | |
| 83 FR 6303 - Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation-Notice of Rescheduled Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6217 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria | |
| 83 FR 6195 - Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 6243 - Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants | |
| 83 FR 6187 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6198 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; FARYDAK | |
| 83 FR 6307 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 83 FR 6308 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 83 FR 6281 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To Amend the BOX Volume Rebate | |
| 83 FR 6284 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule | |
| 83 FR 6299 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule To Exclude NDX and NDXP Options From the Strategy Caps and From Special Pricing for FLEX Transactions | |
| 83 FR 6288 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
| 83 FR 6290 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Data Fees | |
| 83 FR 6283 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Cross-Reference to Rule 124(d) From Rule 1092 | |
| 83 FR 6280 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule Concerning the Floor Broker SPX Surcharge | |
| 83 FR 6275 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Data Fees | |
| 83 FR 6294 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delete Obsolete Rules | |
| 83 FR 6302 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
| 83 FR 6216 - Meetings of Humanities Panel | |
| 83 FR 6213 - Certain Single-Molecule Nucleic Acid Sequencing Systems and Reagents, Consumables, and Software for Use With Same Commission's Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 83 FR 6194 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6190 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Quantitative Data on Tobacco Products and Communications | |
| 83 FR 6192 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VASCEPA | |
| 83 FR 6279 - Investor Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6171 - Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review and Soliciting Scoping Comments; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. | |
| 83 FR 6172 - Notice of Availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southeast Market Pipelines Project | |
| 83 FR 6170 - Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions; Moriah Hydro Corporation | |
| 83 FR 6159 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6204 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6203 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6202 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6201 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6203 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6203 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6202 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6204 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6204 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6202 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6305 - Fiftieth RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary | |
| 83 FR 6304 - Fifty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary | |
| 83 FR 6305 - RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6310 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 6162 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 6177 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6186 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR) | |
| 83 FR 6178 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW) | |
| 83 FR 6176 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6178 - Notice of closed meeting | |
| 83 FR 6177 - Lead Exposure and Prevention Advisory Committee (LEPAC); Notice of Establishment | |
| 83 FR 6179 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 83 FR 6136 - Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Update To Include New Jersey State Requirements | |
| 83 FR 6174 - Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods; Designation of One New Reference Method | |
| 83 FR 6127 - Amendment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; North Central United States | |
| 83 FR 6188 - Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice | |
| 83 FR 6118 - Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders | |
| 83 FR 6120 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6107 - Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series Engine | |
| 83 FR 6132 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 6130 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 6218 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 83 FR 6112 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6110 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6123 - Airworthiness Directives; Aeroclubul Romaniei Gliders | |
| 83 FR 6114 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6364 - Rules Concerning Prepaid Accounts Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) | |
| 83 FR 6314 - Egg Products Inspection Regulations |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Institute of Justice
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various aircraft equipped with a BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG (formerly BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH) 912 A series engine. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as defective valve push-rod assemblies manufactured from June 8, 2016, through October 2, 2017. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 20, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 20, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG, Rotaxstrasse 1, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 6370; internet:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to various aircraft equipped with a BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG (formerly BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH) 912 A series engine. The NPRM was published in the
The MCAI states:
Power loss and engine RPM drop have been reported on Rotax 912/914 engines in service. It has been determined that, due to a quality control deficiency in the manufacturing process of certain valve push-rod assemblies, manufactured between 08 June 2016 and 02 October 2017 inclusive, partial wear on the rocker arm ball socket may occur, which may lead to malfunction of the valve train.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to rough engine operation and loss of power, possibly resulting in a forced landing, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, BRP-Rotax issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-912 i-008/SB-912-070/SB-914-052 (single document), providing applicable instructions.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection and, depending on findings, replacement of affected parts. This [EASA] AD also prohibits installation of affected parts on an engine].
The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Service Bulletin SB-912 i-008 R1/SB-912-070 R1/SB-914-052 R1 (co-published as one document), Revision 1, dated October 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for inspecting and, if necessary, replacing the valve push-rod assembly on the left and/or right rocker arms. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 63 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic inspection requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $70 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $9,765, or $155 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 2 work-hours to replace all 8 valve push-rod assemblies and associated parts on all 4 cylinders and require parts costing $3,093, for a cost of $3,263 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 20, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all serial numbers of the airplanes listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in any category that are either:
(1) Equipped with a BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG (formerly BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH) 912 A series engine (Rotax 912 A series engine) with a serial number (S/N) listed in table 2 to paragraph (c) of this AD; or
(2) equipped with a Rotax 912 A series engine with any S/N that has had a part number (P/N) 854861 valve push-rod assembly replaced in-service (
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Reciprocating Engine.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as defective valve push-rod assemblies manufactured from June 8, 2016, through October 2, 2017. We are issuing this AD to prevent rough engine operation, which could cause loss of power and result in loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI EASA AD No. 2017-0208, dated October 13, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Service Bulletin SB-912 i-008 R1/SB-912-070 R1/SB-914-052 R1 (co-published as one document), Revision 1, dated October 12, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG, Rotaxstrasse 1, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 6370; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as abrasion damage of components or wiring behind the instrument panel. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 5, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 5, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 30, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
The Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/22, dated December 19, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. To accompany that MCAI, the CAA issued Notification of Airworthiness Directive issued for New Zealand Aeronautical Products IAW ICAO Annex 8, dated December 19, 2017; the Notification states:
This [CAA] AD with effective date 28 December 2017 mandates an inspection of components and wiring behind the instrument panel for possible abrasion damage caused by ventilation hose chafing per the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/083 issue 1, dated 15 December 2017, or later approved revision.
The [CAA] AD is prompted by two reports of finding abrasion damage behind the instrument panel caused by ventilation hose chafing.
In addition to the required inspection, this AD requires wrapping the ventilation hose with anti-abrasion tape and rerouting the hose. This AD also requires contacting the manufacturer for corrective action if abrasion damage is found during the required inspection. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 1, dated December 15, 2017. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the ventilation hose behind the instrument panel, wrapping the ventilation hose with anti-abrasion tape, and rerouting the hose. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because chafing of the ventilation hose on instrument components and wiring could cause abrasion damage and lead to short circuit, smoke, and/or fire. Therefore, we determined that notice
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
We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $90 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $7,590, or $345 per product.
The extent of abrasion damage could vary from airplane to airplane. We have no way of knowing how many airplanes may have abrasion damage or the extent of that damage; therefore, we have no way of determining an estimated cost for repair.
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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 5, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Models 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers up to and to include serial number XL220, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 21: Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as abrasion damage of components or wiring behind the instrument panel. We are issuing this AD to detect and prevent abrasion damage of the wiring and components behind the instrument panel, which could lead to short circuit, smoke, and/or fire.
Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 15 days after March 5, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the ventilation hosing, components, and wiring behind the instrument panel for signs of chafing and/or damage following the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 1, dated December 15, 2017.
(2) If any signs of chafing and/or abrasion are found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, contact the manufacturer for an FAA-approved repair approved specifically for this AD. Use the contact information found in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD to contact the manufacturer.
(3) Within 45 days after March 5, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), wrap the ventilation hose in anti-abrasion tape and reroute the hose following the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 1, dated December 15, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to the MCAI by the CAA, AD DCA/750XL/22, dated December 19, 2017; and Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 1, dated December 15, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/083, Issue 1, dated December 15, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as non-conforming fuel tank caps, which could lead to fuel loss during flight. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 5, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 5, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 30, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/20 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. To accompany that MCAI, the CAA issued Notification of Airworthiness Directive issued for New Zealand Aeronautical Products IAW ICAO Annex 8, dated December 8, 2017; the Notification states:
The [CAA] AD is prompted by the possibility that non-conforming fuel tank caps may be installed on certain aircraft, which could result in fuel loss from the aircraft fuel tanks. The POH supplement requires an inspection of the fuel tank caps before every flight, and careful monitoring of the aircraft quantity indication system for fuel use above normal consumption throughout the flight, until a maintenance engineer inspects the fuel tank caps per requirements 2 of the [CAA] AD.
Pacific Aerospace Limited issued Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/089, Issue 01; dated December 8, 2017, which describes procedures for inspection and replacement of the fuel tank caps. The CAA issued Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017, which is a supplement to the pilot's operating handbook/airplane flight manual and describes procedures for inspection of the fuel tank caps and procedures for monitoring fuel consumption. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because non-conforming fuel tank caps could result in fuel loss and lead to fuel starvation and inflight engine shutdown. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer 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
We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $5,610, or $255 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $1,540, for a cost of $2,220 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 5, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Models 750XL airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 205, 208, 210, 214, and 216, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28: Fuel.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as non-conforming fuel tank caps. We are issuing this AD to detect and address non-conforming fuel tank caps, which could result in fuel loss and lead to fuel starvation and inflight engine shutdown.
Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 15 days after March 5, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), insert the CAA, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017, into the pilot's operating handbook/airplane flight manual (POH/AFM).
(2) Within 45 days after March 5, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the fuel tank caps, part number (P/N) 457-1015-12, following the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin, PACSB/XL/089, Issue 01, dated December 8, 2017.
(3) If a damaged or non-conforming fuel tank cap is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, replace any damaged or non-conforming fuel tank cap with a modified fuel tank cap, P/N 11-21087-1.
(4) After replacement of damaged or non-conforming fuel tank caps with P/N 11-21087-1, as required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, remove the CAA Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017, from the POH/AFM.
(5) Replacement of damaged or non-conforming fuel tank caps with P/N 11-21087-1, as required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required in the CAA Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017.
(6) Long-range aircraft delivery ferry flights and oceanic flights are prohibited until the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD and any necessary replacements required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD have been completed.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI from the CAA, AD DCA/750XL/20, dated December 8, 2017; Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/089, Issue 01, dated December 8, 2017; and CAA Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237 (POH/AFM), Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/089, Issue 01, dated December 8, 2017.
(ii) CAA, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models 401, 401A, 401B, 402, 402A, 402B, 402C, 411, 411A, 414, 414A 421, 421A, 421B, 421C, and 425 airplanes. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the left and the right forward lower carry through spar cap for cracks and replacing the carry through spar if cracks are found. This AD was prompted by a report of a fully cracked lower forward carry through spar cap found on an affected airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 28, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 28, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 30, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Textron Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, One Cessna Blvd., Wichita, Kansas 67215; telephone: (316) 517-5800; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Bobbie Kroetch, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
We received a report of a fully cracked lower forward carry through spar cap found on a Textron Aviation Inc. (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 402C airplane. Investigation revealed that the crack is a result of metal fatigue. At this time, the cracking has only been found on the Model 402C airplanes. However, the carry through spar cap and surrounding structure on the other model airplanes included in this AD are similar and the loads on the other model airplanes are similar to (or higher than) the Model 402C airplanes.
This condition, if not addressed, could cause failure of the carry through spar cap during flight and result in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed Textron Aviation Multi-engine Mandatory Service Letter MEL-57-01 and Textron Aviation Conquest Mandatory Service Letter CQL-57-01, both dated December 18, 2017. As applicable, these service letters describe procedures for repetitively inspecting the forward lower carry through spar cap for cracks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed Textron Aviation Conquest Service Bulletin CQB-57-01, Textron Aviation Multi-engine Service Bulletin MEB-57-01, and Textron Multi-engine Service Bulletin MEB-57-02, all dated December 20, 2017. As applicable, these service bulletins provide the manufacturer's optional procedures for installing access panels for easier access to the forward lower carry through spars. This AD does not require installing the access panels.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires repetitively inspecting the left and the right forward lower carry through spar cap for cracks and replacing the carry through spar if cracks are found. This AD also requires sending the inspection results to the FAA.
We consider this AD interim action. Textron Aviation Inc. is evaluating the initial and repetitive inspection intervals, as well as designing a replacement lower carry through spar cap from an improved material. After the evaluations are complete and the design modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the left and/or the right forward lower carry through spar cap could cause the carry through spar cap to fail during flight and result in loss of control. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason 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 was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 2,147 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacements:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 28, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the following Textron Aviation Inc. (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) model airplanes, that are certificated in any category:
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report that a fully cracked lower forward carry through spar cap was found on a Textron Model 402C airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the carry through spar cap during flight. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the next 25 hours TIS after February 28, 2018 (the effective date of this
Using the compliance times listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD, do a detailed visual inspection of the left and right forward lower carry through spar cap for cracks. Using a 10X magnifier visually inspect the bottom surface of the carry through spar cap in the areas around the fasteners located just inboard of the left-hand and right-hand forward lower wing fittings. If a crack is not positively identified during the detailed visual inspection but is suspected or the area is questionable, before further flight, do a surface eddy current inspection of the suspected area. Do these inspections using the Accomplishment Instructions in Textron Aviation Multi-engine Mandatory Service Letter MEL-57-01 and Textron Aviation Conquest Mandatory Service Letter CQL-57-01, both dated December 18, 2017, as applicable.
(1)
(2)
(3)
If no cracks are found during the detailed visual inspections or the surface eddy current inspections required in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS. Inspect as specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD using the service information specified in each paragraph as applicable.
If cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraphs (g) through (i) and paragraph (k) of this AD, before further flight, replace the carry through spar.
At the compliance times in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this AD, do a detailed visual inspection of the left and right forward lower carry through spar cap for cracks. Using a 10X magnifier visually inspect the bottom surface of the carry through spar cap in the areas around the fasteners located just inboard of the left-hand and right-hand forward lower wing fittings. If a crack is not positively identified during the detailed visual inspection but is suspected or the area is questionable, before further flight, do a surface eddy current inspection of the suspected area. Do these inspections using the Accomplishment Instructions in Textron Aviation Multi-engine Mandatory Service Letter MEL-57-01 and Textron Aviation Conquest Mandatory Service Letter CQL-57-01, both dated December 18, 2017, as applicable.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Within 30 days after each inspection required by paragraphs (g) through (i) and paragraph (k) of this AD, report the results of the inspection to the FAA representative identified in paragraph (q) of this AD using the undated Attachment (titled Spar Cap Inspection Results Form and Spar Cap Inspection Results Form Continued) to Textron Aviation Multi-engine Mandatory Service Letter MEL-57-01 and Textron Aviation Conquest Mandatory Service Letter CQL-57-01, both dated December 18, 2017, as applicable. Please identify AD 2018-03-03 in the subject line if submitted through email.
Textron Aviation Conquest Service Bulletin CQB-57-01, Textron Aviation Multi-engine Service Bulletin MEB-57-01, and Textron Multi-engine Service Bulletin MEB-57-02, all dated December 20, 2017, provide the manufacturer's optional procedures for installing access panels for easier access to the forward carry through spars. This AD does not require installing the access panels, but does not restrict the owner/operator from doing so.
This AD allows credit for the initial inspection of the forward lower carry through spar cap required in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD if done before February 28, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) using the following documents:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO 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
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Bobbie Kroetch, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Textron Aviation Multi-engine Mandatory Service Letter MEL-57-01, dated December 18, 2017 (includes the undated Attachment titled Spar Cap Inspection Results Form and Spar Cap Inspection Results Form Continued).
(ii) Textron Aviation Conquest Mandatory Service Letter CQL-57-01, dated December 18, 2017 (includes the undated Attachment titled Spar Cap Inspection Results Form and Spar Cap Inspection Results Form Continued).
(3) For Textron Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, One Cessna Blvd., Wichita, Kansas 67215; telephone: (316) 517-5800; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-10-11 for Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products and to add Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders to the Applicability section.
This AD is effective March 20, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 20, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 3341 3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; internet:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG) and all Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders equipped with a certain front gearbox, part number 11AG. That NPRM was published in the
Since we issued AD 2017-10-11, we have type certificated Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders in the United States and have determined those model gliders should also be included in the applicability of AD 2017-10-11. In addition, Stemme AG has issued new service information with procedures for addressing the unsafe condition.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response to the comment.
Taylor Ray stated that the manufacturer should be responsible for replacing the front gearbox on the affected gliders at no cost to the owners/operators. We infer that the commenter is referring to the cost for both parts and labor.
Taylor Ray stated that since the unsafe condition resulted from the manufacturing process, the manufacturer should be responsible for fixing the unsafe condition.
We neither agree nor disagree since the FAA does not get involved in who pays for the cost of mitigating an unsafe condition. The primary concern the FAA has when issuing an AD is addressing unsafe conditions on various aircraft flying in the United States. While we provide information related to the estimated labor and parts cost associated with each AD, we do not control warranty coverage for owner/operators of the affected aircraft nor can
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for changes stated above. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Stemme AG has issued STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017, and STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017. In combination, the service information describes procedures for replacing the front gearbox. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The service information for this AD allows the owner/operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service information specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme AG. However, for this AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do any maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme AG; any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do the tasks required by this AD.
According to the U.S. registry, we have a total of 51 of both glider types registered, but there are still only 14 serial numbers of the part number 11AG front gearbox. Therefore, the most gliders that will be affected remains 14. According to Stemme AG, there are a total of 4 of the affected front gearboxes on both glider types of U.S. registry (2 for each model).
It will take an estimated 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,000 per product.
Based on these figures, if we consider the costs for all 14 affected gearboxes, then we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $39,990, or $2,850 per product.
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 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 20, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-11”).
This AD applies to Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG), all serial numbers, and Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Equipped with a front gearbox, part number (P/N) 11AG, with a serial number listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD; and
(2) are certificated in any category.
Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Page 2 of Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, provides a pictorial of where the serial number of the affected gearboxes are located.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 61: Propellers/Propulsors.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to add a model glider to the Applicability, paragraph (c) of this AD, and to prevent failure of the propeller front transmission gear wheels. This failure could cause loss of power between the engine and the propeller, which could result in reduced control.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(2)
(3) As of March 20, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a front gear box listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD.
(4) The service information for this AD allows the owner/operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service information specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme AG. However, for this AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do any maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme AG; any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do the tasks required by this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0072-E, dated April 26, 2017, and Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017.
(ii) STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017.
(3) For Stemme AG service information identified in this AD, contact STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 3341 3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; internet:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
This AD is effective March 20, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 20, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0250, dated December 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:
A few pockets of fuselage Section T5 lateral panels were manufactured with defects in certain chemically-milled profiles. The technical investigation concluded that the fatigue limit of the affected panels might be reduced, depending on the defect characteristics.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this potential unsafe condition, DA published Service Bulletin (SB) F7X-042 providing inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time [detailed] inspection of the chemically-milled profiles of the pockets of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also requires, for some aeroplanes, the installation of a stiffener on the forward pocket.
Applicable corrective actions include repair, if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016. This service information describes the inspection of the chemically milled profiles of the pockets of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels and the installation of a stiffener on the forward pocket on affected airplanes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes 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 is effective March 20, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 2 through 19 inclusive, except S/Ns 3 and 8.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Structure.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a few pockets of fuselage Section T5 lateral panels were manufactured with defects that could reduce the fatigue limit of the affected panels. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of certain fuselage lateral panels, which could lead to crack propagation and possible reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 99 months or 4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection to measure the pocket depth of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016.
During the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if any discrepancy is found, as defined in Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016, before further flight, contact the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for approved repair instructions, and, within the compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish the repair accordingly.
For airplanes having S/Ns 16, 17, and 19: Within 99 months or 4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, install a stiffener on the forward pocket of Section T5 fuselage lateral panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, dated January 3, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0250, dated December 15, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Aeroclubul Romaniei Model IS-28B2 gliders. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks at stringers in the rear fuselage of several Model IS-28B2 gliders. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 20, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 20, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Aeroclubul Romaniei, Bd.Lascar Catargiu, Nr.54, cod: 010673, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania; telephone: 011+40 021-312-36-19; fax: 011+40 021-312-36-19; internet:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Aeroclubul Romaniei Model IS-28B2 gliders. The NPRM was published in the
Cracks were reportedly detected, located at stringers in the rear fuselage of a number of IS-28B2 sailplanes. The subsequent investigation attributed these cracks to induction of a pre-stress during the manufacturing process of the affected parts.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced structural strength, possibly resulting in a loss of structural integrity of the sailplane.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, Aeroclubul Romaniei (AR) issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-IS-28B2-AR-01 to provide inspection instructions. AR is currently developing modification(s) to provide a design solution for the affected sailplanes.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the structure of the rear fuselage and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.
The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at:
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Aeroclubul Romaniei Service Bulletin No.: SB-IS-28B2-AR-01, Revision 003, dated February 9, 2017 (ARSB No. AR-01), and Aeroclubul Romaniei Service Bulletin No.: SB-IS-28B2-AR-02, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2017 (ARSB No. AR-02). ARSB No. AR-01 describes procedures for inspection of the rear fuselage area to detect any cracks, ruptures, or corrosion. ARSB No. AR-02 describes procedures for installation of a modification to the upper stringer of the rear fuselage. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 30 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $5,100, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 15 work-hours and require parts costing $1,000, for a cost of $2,275 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 20, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Aeroclubul Romaniei Model IS-28B2 gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks at stringers in the rear fuselage of several Model IS-28B2 gliders. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks, which could lead to reduced structural strength resulting in loss of structural integrity and loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3):
(1) Within 90 days after March 20, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspect the rear fuselage structure following the instructions in Aeroclubul Romaniei Service Bulletin (SB) No.: SB-IS-28B2-AR-01, Revision 003, dated February 9, 2017.
(2) If any crack or corrosion is detected during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, modify the rear fuselage structure following the instructions in Aeroclubul Romaniei SB No.: SB-IS-28B2-AR-02, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2017.
(3) Completion of the modification to the rear fuselage structure as required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
Although Aeroclubul Romaniei SB No.: SB-IS-28B2-AR-01, Revision 003, dated February 9, 2017, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI AD No.: 2016-0233, dated November 23, 2016. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Aeroclubul Romaniei Service Bulletin No.: SB-IS-28B2-AR-01, Revision 003, dated February 9, 2017.
(ii) Aeroclubul Romaniei Service Bulletin No.: SB-IS-28B2-AR-02, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2017.
(3) For Aeroclubul Romaniei service information identified in this AD, contact: Aeroclubul Romaniei, Bd.Lascar Catargiu, Nr.54, cod: 010673, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania; telephone: 011+40 021-312-36-19; fax: 011+40 021-312-36-19; internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) CT7-5A2, CT7-5A3, CT7-7A, CT7-7A1, CT7-9B, CT7-9B1, CT7-9B2, CT7-9C and CT7-9C3 model turboprop engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive visual inspection and fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) of the main propeller shaft. This AD was prompted by the failure of a main propeller shaft. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 28, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 28, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 30, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Michael Richardson-Bach, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We received a report that a condition was found after an incident where the main propeller shaft on a GE CT7-9B failed in flight, resulting in the loss of the propeller. The condition is cracking initiating from undiscovered corrosion in the dowel pin hole on the flange of the main propeller shaft. This proposed AD would require visually inspecting the main propeller shaft for wear and corrosion and FPI for cracks. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the main propeller shaft, resulting in in-flight loss of the propeller, loss of engine thrust control, and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
A similar propeller separation incident occurred in 1992 because of a material defect. The affected parts were purged from the field at that time.
We reviewed SPM 70-32-03, SPOT-FLUORESCENT PENETRANT INSPECTION, TASK 70-32-03-230-002, from the GE Commercial Engine Standard Practices Manual GEK 9250, Rev. 106, dated April 01, 2007. This procedure provides instruction for spot FPI.
We also reviewed MM 72-10-00, PROPELLER GEARBOX INSPECTION and MM 72-10-00, PROPELLER GEARBOX—CLEANING, from the GE CT7B Maintenance Manual SEI-576, Rev. 60, dated October 1, 2017. These procedures provides instructions for inspection and cleaning, respectively, of the main propeller shaft.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CT7-TP S/B 72-0531, dated June 22, 2017. The SB references standard procedures for initial and repetitive visual and FPI of the main propeller shaft for SF340 aircraft.
We also reviewed GE SB CT7-TP S/B 72-0533, dated October 3, 2017. The SB references standard procedures for initial and repetitive visual and FPI
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires visually inspecting the main propeller shaft for wear and corrosion and FPI for cracks.
The inspection plan in this AD adds visual inspection and FPI to the repetitive inspections. This AD adds upper limits to the “inspect within” times to avoid conflicting times to inspect.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the compliance time for the action is less than the time required for public comment. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason 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 was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 176 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 28, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CT7-5A2, CT7-5A3, CT7-7A, CT7-7A1, CT7-9B, CT7-9B1, CT7-9B2, CT7-9C and CT7-9C3 model turboprop engines with main propeller shaft, part number 77581-11, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7210, Turbine Engine Reduction Gear.
This AD was prompted by the failure of a main propeller shaft. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the main propeller shaft. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in in-flight loss of the propeller, loss of engine thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For propeller gear boxes (PGBs) with 46,000 hours time since new (TSN) or more, perform cleaning, visual inspection, and fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) within 150 hours time in service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, or one month after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) For PGBs with 40,000 hours TSN or more, but less than 46,000 hours TSN, perform cleaning, visual inspection, and FPI within 500 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, not to exceed 46,150 TSN or four months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(3) For PGBs with 30,000 hours TSN or more, but less than 40,000 hours TSN, perform cleaning, visual inspection, and FPI within 1,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, not to exceed 40,500 TSN or eight months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(4) For PGBs with less than 30,000 hours TSN, perform cleaning, visual inspection, and FPI at the next propeller removal, not to exceed 31,000 hours TSN.
(5) Perform the cleaning, visual inspection and FPI, as follows:
(i) Clean the main propeller shaft flange. Use the instructions in paragraph 5, “Main Propeller Shaft,” in MM 72-10-00, PROPELLER GEARBOX—CLEANING from GE CT7B Maintenance Manual SEI-576, Rev. 60, dated October 1, 2017.
(ii) Visually inspect the main propeller shaft for wear, corrosion, and cracking. Use the instructions in paragraph 5.A., “Main Propeller Shaft,” in MM 72-10-00, PROPELLER GEARBOX—INSPECTION from GE CT7B Maintenance Manual SEI-576, Rev. 60, dated October 1, 2017.
(iii) Spot-fluorescent-penetrant inspect the area on the main propeller shaft flange face within 0.5 inches radially adjacent to the dowel pin holes for cracks. Use the instructions in SPM 70-32-03, SPOT-FLUORESCENT PENETRANT—INSPECTION, Task 70-32-03-230-002 from GE GEK 9250, Commercial Engine Standard Practices Manual, Rev. 106, dated April 1, 2007.
(6) Repeat the cleaning, visual inspection, and FPI of the main propeller shaft at each removal of the propeller.
(7) Before further flight, remove from service any main propeller shaft found cracked, or with corrosion or wear beyond the limits specified in SPM 70-32-03, SPOT-FLUORESCENT PENETRANT—INSPECTION, Task 70-32-03-230-002, from GE GEK 9250, Commercial Engine Standard Practices Manual, Rev. 106, dated April 1, 2007.
Main propeller shafts that were replaced with new zero-time parts at an overhaul of the PGB within the last 10,000 hours TIS, or inspected in accordance with GE Service Bulletin (SB) CT7-TP S/B 72-0531, dated June 22, 2017, or GE SB CT7-TP S/B 72-0533, dated October 3, 2017, satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, ECO 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 manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Michael Richardson-Bach, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) SPM 70-32-03, SPOT-FLUORESCENT PENETRANT INSPECTION, TASK 70-32-03-230-002, from the GE Commercial Engine Standard Practices Manual GEK 9250, Rev. 106, dated April 01, 2007.
(ii) MM 72-10-00, PROPELLER GEARBOX INSPECTION, from the GE CT7B Maintenance Manual SEI-576, Rev. 60, dated October 1, 2017.
(iii) MM 72-10-00, PROPELLER GEARBOX—CLEANING, from the GE CT7B Maintenance Manual SEI-576, Rev. 60, dated October 1, 2017.
(3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
The FAA is amending four high altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) Q-routes (Q-140, Q-818, Q-935, and Q-947) that cross the United States (U.S.)/Canada border in the north central U.S. This action updates the latitude/longitude coordinates for three Canadian waypoints listed in the Q-route descriptions contained in the FAA aeronautical database to match the Canadian aeronautical database source information.
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the route structure as required to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
On September 26, 2014, the FAA published in the
This rule makes the Canadian waypoint corrections to ensure the Q-routes and FAA aeronautical database are in concert with the Canadian aeronautical database source information.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying RNAV Q-routes Q-140, Q-818, Q-935, and Q-947. The route modifications correct the RUBKI, IKNAV, and REVEN waypoint geographic coordinates used in the routes to match the Q-route descriptions and the FAA aeronautical database with the Canadian aeronautical database source information. The amendments result in no substantive changes or impact on the public and ensure safe and efficient across border connectivity.
The RNAV route modifications accomplished by this action are outlined below.
Because the changes in this technical amendment result in no substantive change, we find notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
High altitude United States RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2006 and high altitude Canadian RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2007 of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The high altitude United States and Canadian RNAV Q-routes listed in this rule will be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying four high altitude RNAV Q-routes qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Excluding the airspace within Canada.
Excluding the airspace within Canada.
Excluding the airspace within Canada.
Excluding the airspace within Canada.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective February 13, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective February 13, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 13, 2018.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
The final rule approves regulations to implement the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan Framework Adjustment 4 management measures. This rule implements several measures to reduce the risk of the skate bait fishery from effectively closing down as it did in fishing year 2016. This action will reduce the skate bait season 3 possession limit and establish a separate skate bait incidental possession limit. This action is needed to better control the catch of skate bait and provide a more consistent supply of skate bait to the lobster fishery.
Effective March 15, 2018.
New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Northeast Skate Complex Framework Adjustment 4 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides a thorough analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, a Regulatory Impact Review, and economic analysis. Copies of the Framework 4 EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses:
Debra Lambert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (301) 427-8560.
The Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the New England Fishery Management Council and implemented in 2003, manages a complex of seven skate species (barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter skate) off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts. Skates are harvested and managed in two different fisheries: one for food (the wing fishery) and one for lobster bait (the bait fishery). Fishery specific allocations, called total allowable landings (TALs), are set through biennial specifications. Additional information on the skate fisheries can be found online at:
The bait and wing fisheries have different seasonal quotas and possession limits. Generally, the bait fishery operates under an exemption from the wing fishery possession limits; however, the inseason adjustments to possession limits have been linked between the two fisheries. The bait fishery is managed under a 3-season fishing year: Season 1 is May 1-July 31; Season 2 is August 1-October 31; and, Season 3 is November 1-April 30. Previously, when the bait fishery reached 90 percent of a season's TAL, or 90 percent of the annual bait TAL, the bait fishery possession limit reverted to the substantially lower wing possession limit. The linked inseason adjustment for these fisheries became problematic in fishing year 2016, as the possession limit in the skate bait fishery was reduced twice, effectively closing the bait fishery. Further background can be found in the proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 4 to the FMP, which published on October 20, 2017 (82 FR 48781). Additional information on previous and current skate management measures can be reviewed through the Council's website at
In response to the closure, the Council developed Framework 4 to reduce the likelihood of a lengthy in-season closure while ensuring bait landings do not exceed the TAL. As mentioned above, on October 20, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule (82 FR 48781) identifying the measures in Framework 4. Comments on the proposed rule were accepted through November 6, 2017.
NMFS is approving the regulatory changes for the skate bait fishery as recommended by the Council in Framework 4 and detailed in our proposed rule. The approved measures are:
The Season 3 (November 1 through April 30) possession limit is reduced from 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) to 12,000 lb (5,443 kg). Because Season 3 is the longest season in the bait fishery (6 months), reducing the trip limit should slow the catch rate and lessen the chance of closing the fishery.
The trigger for implementing an inseason adjustment to possession limits in Season 3 is reduced from 90 to 80 percent of the TAL (
This action de-couples the inseason adjustments for the skate wing and bait fisheries. Once the trigger for implementing an inseason adjustment to possession limits in the skate bait fishery has been reached, the incidental possession limit will be 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) for the remainder of the season.
The bait fishery will be closed when 100 percent of the bait TAL is projected to be harvested. This measure will better ensure that the skate bait fishery does not exceed its TAL.
This action also clarifies that if NMFS determines that an in-season possession limit reduction (putting in place the incidental possession limit) could prohibit the skate bait fishery from achieving its annual TAL, NMFS may remove the in-season reduction and reinstate the standard seasonal possession limit.
We received four public comments on the proposed rule, two of which were not responsive to the action.
Only two minor revisions were made to the regulatory text that was specified in the proposed rule. Section 648.322(c)(4) was revised to reduce redundancy by deleting the following phrase from the end of the sentence: “or whole skates greater than 23 inches (58.42 cm) total length.” Section 648.322(f) was revised for clarity by adding the phrase “possession limit” towards the end of the sentence.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that Framework 4 to the FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the northeast skate complex and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in support of this action. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis and the EA are available from the Council (see
We received four public comments on the proposed rule, two of which were not responsive to the action. For a summary of the comments, and NMFS' response, see the Comments and Responses section above. The comments did not raise any issues or concerns related to the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule more generally. In addition, no comments were filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule. No changes were made to the rule as a result of comments.
This rule will affect vessels that hold Federal open access commercial skate permits that participate in the skate fishery or affiliated groups that hold multiple open access commercial skate permits that participate in the skate fishery. Within the skate bait fishery, the majority of affiliated groups consist of a single permit-holder, or 71 vessels in fishing year 2015, the most recent year for which complete information was available during the Council's impact analyses. Four vessels belong to affiliated groups that hold two or more permits.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The Council's analysis indicates the maximum number of small fishing entities that may be affected by this action is 69 (71 vessels), based on 2015 data. During fishing year 2015, only 69 affiliated groups landed any amount of skate for bait. At the permit level, every skate landing permit is defined as a small business according to size standards (the top five vessels have total revenues between 600 thousand and 1.9 million dollars in 2015).
This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
The Council considered revising the skate bait trigger for implementing an inseason adjustment, reduced possession limit, and closure independently, but elected to include all of the measures into a single action. The Council was concerned that, independently, the measures would not restrict catch enough and leave the fishery at risk of a substantial closure with accompanying economic impacts. Incorporating all of the measures accomplishes the goals and objectives of the FMP and minimizes the economic impact on small entities. Retaining the status quo management measures would not slow catch and would result in the fishery having a higher likelihood of closing for an extended period, resulting in greater profit losses to industry and bait shortages to the lobster fishery—both issues the Council sought to avoid by the Framework 4 action.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as a small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), and the compliance guide,
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c)
(1) The vessel owner or operator obtains and retains onboard the vessel a valid LOA. LOAs are available upon request from the Regional Administrator.
(2) The vessel owner or operator fishes for, possesses, or lands skates only for use as bait.
(3) The vessel owner or operator possesses or lands no more than 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) of whole skates per trip during Seasons 1 or 2 and no more than 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) of whole skates per trip during Season 3.
(4) The vessel owner or operator possesses or lands only whole skates less than 23 inches (58.42 cm) total length, and does not possess or land any skate wings.
(5) Vessels that choose to possess or land skate wings during the participation period of this letter of authorization must comply with possession limit restrictions under paragraph (b) of this section for all skates or skate parts on board. Vessels possessing skate wings in compliance with the possession limit restrictions under paragraph (b) of this section may fish for, possess, or land skates for uses other than bait.
(6) The vessel owner or operator complies with the transfer at sea requirements at § 648.13(h).
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Retain, possess, or land barndoor or thorny skates taken in or from the EEZ portion of the Skate Management Unit.
(2) Retain, possess, or land smooth skates taken in or from the GOM RMA described at § 648.80(a)(1)(i).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the
The last date for submitting comments to the NPRM (83 FR 4605, February 1, 2018) remains March 19, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Bobbie Kroetch, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Product Identifier 2017-CE-031-AD (83 FR 4605, February 1, 2018), proposes to require repetitively inspecting the lower area of the forward cabin doorposts for cracks and repairing any cracks found by modifying the area with the applicable Cessna service kit.
As published, the Docket No. throughout the document is incorrect.
No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the NPRM is being published in the
The last date for submitting comments to the NPRM remains March 19, 2018.
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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
In the
On page 4605, in the first column, on line four in the heading, change “Docket No. FAA-2017-0049” to “Docket No. FAA-2018-0049.”
On page 4605, in the second column, on line four and five under the heading Examining the AD Docket, change “Docket No. FAA-2017-0049” to “Docket No. FAA-2018-0049.”
On page 4605, in the second column, on line five and six under the heading Comments Invited, change “Docket No. FAA-2017-0049” to “Docket No. FAA-2018-0049.”
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries which must
Written comments must be received on or before March 15, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0723 at
Viorica Petriman, Air Programs Branch, Permitting Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, (212) 637-4021,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,
Section 328(a) of the CAA requires that for such sources located within 25 miles of a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same as would be applicable if the sources were located in the corresponding onshore area (COA). Because the OCS requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) requires that the EPA update the OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore requirements.
To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate by reference applicable rules in effect for onshore sources into part 55. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into 40 CFR part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the CAA. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the CAA for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.
In updating 40 CFR part 55, the EPA reviewed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”)'s air rules currently in effect, to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of Federal and State AAQS or part C of title I of the Act and that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. The EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary and capricious. 40 CFR 55.12(e). The EPA has excluded New Jersey's administrative or procedural rules,
To comply with the statutory mandate of Section 328(a)(1) of the CAA, the EPA must incorporate by reference all relevant state rules into part 55 so they can be applied to OCS sources located offshore. 40 CFR 55.12 specifies certain times at which part 55's incorporation by reference of a state's rules must be updated. One such time a consistency update must occur is when any OCS source applicant submits a Notice of Intent (NOI) under 40 CFR 55.4 for a new or a modified OCS source. 40 CFR 55.4(a) requires that any OCS source applicant must submit to EPA a NOI before performing any physical change or change in method of operation that results in an increase in emissions. EPA must conduct any necessary consistency update when it receives an NOI, and prior to receiving any application for a preconstruction permit from the OCS source applicant. 40 CFR 55.6(b)(2) and 55.12(f).
On December 21, 2017, the EPA received a NOI for a new OCS source off the coast of New Jersey. In today's action, the EPA is proposing to update the “New Jersey” section of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 55 to incorporate by reference the following relevant New Jersey air pollution control rules that are currently in effect:
Chapter 27 Subchapter 2—Control and Prohibition of Open Burning (Effective 6/20/1994),
N.J.A.C. 7:27-2.1 through 2.4,7:27-2.6 through 2.8, and 7:27-2.12 through 2.13;
Chapter 27 Subchapter 3—Control and Prohibition of Smoke from Combustion of Fuel (Effective 2/4/2002);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 4—Control and Prohibition of Particles from
Chapter 27 Subchapter 5—Prohibition of Air Pollution (Effective 10/12/1977);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 6—Control and Prohibition of Particles from Manufacturing Processes (Effective 6/12/1998);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 7—Sulfur (Effective 11/6/2017), N.J.A.C. 7:27-7.1 and 7.2;
Chapter 27 Subchapter 8—Permits and Certificates for Minor Facilities (and Major Facilities without an Operating Permit) (Effective 1/16/2018), N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.1 through 8.9, 7:27-8.11 through 8.21, 7:27-8.23 through 8.25, 7:27-8.27, and Appendix 1;
Chapter 27 Subchapter 9—Sulfur in Fuels (Effective 9/20/2010);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 10—Sulfur in Solid Fuels (Effective 9/6/2011);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 11—Incinerators (Effective 5/4/1998);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 12—Prevention and Control of Air Pollution Emergencies (Effective 5/20/1974);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 16—Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds (Effective 1/16/2018), N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.1 through 16.10, 7:27-16.12 through 16.13, 7:27-16.16 through 16.23, 7:27-16.27, and Appendix I and II;
Chapter 27 Subchapter 18—Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from New or Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality (Emission Offset Rules) (Effective 11/6/2017);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 19—Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen (Effective 1/16/2018), N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.1 through 19.8, 7:27-19.11, 7:27-19.13 through 19.21, 7:27-19.23, and 7:27-19.25 through 19.26;
Chapter 27 Subchapter 20—Used Oil Combustion (Effective 9/6/2011);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 21—Emission Statements (Effective 1/16/2018);
Chapter 27 Subchapter 22—Operating Permits (Effective 1/16/2018);
Chapter 27B Subchapter 1—Sampling and Analytical Procedures for Determining Emissions of Particles from Manufacturing Processes and from Combustion of Fuels (Effective 6/21/1976);
Chapter 27B Subchapter 2—Procedures for Visual Determination of the Opacity (Percent) and Shade or Appearance (Ringelmann Number) of Emissions from Sources (Effective 6/21/1976); and
Chapter 27B Subchapter 3—Air Test Method 3: Sampling and Analytical Procedures for the Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds from Source Operations (Effective 12/1/2008).
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the NJDEP air rules that are applicable to OCS sources and which are currently in effect. These regulations are described in Section III (“What Action is EPA Proposing to Take?”) of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS consistency updates, the EPA's role is to maintain consistency between OCS regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with requirements onshore, without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 04-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor does it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 55, is proposed to be amended as follows:
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401,
(e)
(15) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) State of New Jersey Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, January 16, 2018.
NEW JERSEY
(a) * * *
(1) The following State of New Jersey requirements are applicable to OCS Sources, as of January 16, 2018. New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection—New Jersey Administrative Code. The following sections of Title 7:
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; proposed auction procedures.
The Wireless Telecommunications and Media Bureaus (the Bureaus) announce an auction of certain cross-service FM translator construction permits. This document also seeks comment on competitive bidding procedures and proposed minimum opening bids for Auction 99.
Comments are due on or before February 13, 2018, and reply comments are due on or before February 21, 2018. Bidding for FM translator construction permits in Auction 99 is scheduled to begin on May 15, 2018.
Interested parties may submit comments in response to the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments, see the
For auction legal questions, Lynne Milne in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Auctions and Spectrum Access Division at (202) 418-0660. For general auction questions, the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2868. For FM translator service questions, James Bradshaw, Lisa Scanlan or Tom Nessinger in the Media Bureau's Audio Division at (202) 418-2700.
This is a summary of the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice in AU Docket No. 17-143, DA 18-91, released on January 31, 2018. The complete text of this document, including its attachment, is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Auction 99 Comment Public Notice and related documents also are available on the internet at the Commission's website:
All filings in response to the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice must refer to AU Docket No.17-143. The Bureaus strongly encourage interested parties to file comments electronically, and request that an additional copy of all comments and reply comments be submitted electronically to the following address:
1. On June 1, 2017, the Bureaus announced an auction filing window for AM broadcasters seeking new cross-service FM translator station
2. Auction 99 will resolve mutually exclusive (MX) applications for construction permits for commercial cross-service FM translator stations. Competitive bidding will be used to select winning bidders for up to 12 new cross-service FM translator permits. A list of the locations and channels of these proposed stations is included in Attachment A of the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice. Attachment A also listed a proposed minimum opening bid and a proposed upfront payment amount for each construction permit.
3. An applicant listed in Attachment A may become qualified to bid only if it meets the additional filing, qualification, payment and other applicable rules, policies and procedures. Each qualified bidder may become eligible to bid on only those construction permits specified for that applicant in Attachment A to the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice. Each of the engineering proposals within each MX group are directly mutually exclusive with one another; therefore, no more than one construction permit will be awarded for each MX group identified in Attachment A. Under the Commission's established precedent, because mutual exclusivity exists for auction purposes, once mutually exclusive applications are accepted, even if only one applicant for a particular construction permit becomes qualified to bid, that applicant must submit a bid in order to be eligible to obtain that construction permit.
4. The Bureaus will process all timely submitted Forms 175 to determine which are complete, and subsequently will issue a public notice identifying those that are complete and those that are incomplete or deficient because of minor defects that may be corrected. That public notice will provide instructions for applicants to make only minor corrections to their Forms 175. The public notice will include a deadline for resubmitting corrected Forms 175.
5. Section 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to that application. Thus, section 1.65 requires an auction applicant to notify the Commission of any substantial change to the information or certifications included in its pending short-form application. See also 47 CFR 1.2105(b)(4), (c).
6. If information needs to be submitted pursuant to sections 1.65 or 1.2105 outside of the upcoming resubmission window in Auction 99, the applicant must submit a letter briefly summarizing the changes by email to
7. The Bureaus seek comment on whether our application of certain aspects of the current rules governing auctions should be modified to implement our prior decision to allow eligible AM licensees having any of the same controlling interests in common to file separate Forms 175, rather than a single Form 175, as is currently required. In recognition of the specific eligibility provisions and filing procedures for this auction window, the Bureaus waived, for Auction 99, section 1.2105(a)(3)'s prohibition on the filing of more than one Form 175 in an auction by entities with any of the same controlling interests. Thus, the Bureaus permitted entities controlled by the same individual or set of individuals to file separate Forms 175 for Auction 99.
8. The prohibition on the filing of more than one Form 175 in an auction by entities with any of the same controlling interests was adopted in 2015 in conjunction with other rule changes. Under section 1.2105(a), as revised in 2015, each auction applicant must certify that it has disclosed any arrangements or understandings of any kind relating to the licenses being auctioned to which it (or any party that controls or is controlled by it) is a party, and must certify that it (or any party that controls or is controlled by it) has not entered and will not enter any arrangement or understanding of any kind relating directly or indirectly to bidding at auction with any other applicant for the auction, among others. In 2015, the Commission also revised the rule prohibiting certain communications, section 1.2105(c), to prohibit a communication of bids or bidding strategies between any applicants in an auction, and thus the prohibition is no longer limited to a communication between applicants that had applied for construction permits to serve the same area. In addition, the revisions to that rule removed a prior exception to section 1.2105(c) under which applicants that had entered into bidding-related agreements could engage in certain communications so long as each entity had disclosed the other as a party to such an agreement on its auction application pursuant to section 1.2105(a)(2)(viii). For purposes of section 1.2105(c), an applicant is defined as including all officers and directors of the entity submitting a Form 175, all controlling interests of that entity, as well as all holders of partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest amounting to 10 percent or more of the entity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock of the entity submitting a Form 175. In applying the prohibited communication rule, the Bureaus have found that, where an individual served as an officer and director for two or more applicants subject to the rule, the bids and bidding strategies of one applicant are presumptively conveyed to the other applicant. Consequently, the Bureaus determined that, absent a disclosed bidding agreement between such applicants creating an applicable exception under the prior rule, an apparent violation of section 1.2105(c) would occur.
9. Finally, in a change related to the prohibition on joint bidding agreements and the changes to the prohibited communication rule, revised section 1.2105(a)(2)(iii) now prohibits any individual from serving as an authorized bidder of more than one applicant.
10. In the event that Auction 99 applicants under common control may have filed separate Forms 175 pursuant to the Bureaus' waiver of section 1.2105(a)(3), such applicants could be at risk of violating section 1.2105(c) because the Commission presumes that
11. Accordingly, the Bureaus seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to waive or modify the application of section 1.2105 provisions so that Auction 99 applicants relying on the waiver of section 1.2105(a)(3) will not thereby violate such other provisions. With respect to a communication between commonly owned applicants, this auction appears analogous to the circumstances of Auction 1001, the reverse auction portion of the broadcast incentive auction. In that case, as here, applicants to participate in the auction were limited to specified current licensees of the Commission. Consequently, it was clear that multiple applicants would be commonly controlled.
12. With respect to implementing the commonly controlled applicant exception in the broadcast incentive auction, the Commission provided that the prohibition did not apply to a communication between different applicants if they share a common controlling interest, director, officer, or governing board member as of the deadline for submitting applications to participate in the reverse auction. The Commission expressly noted that an applicant's communication would not qualify for this exception based on a new director, officer or governing board member added after the application deadline. According to the Commission, if a covered licensee were to appoint a new officer after the broadcast incentive auction application deadline, that new officer would be subject to the rule and not included within the exception.
13. In this auction, when applying the Commission's general competitive bidding rules, do the limitations on eligibility to bid on specific permits in this closed auction similarly provide good cause to waive section 1.2105(c) for communications between commonly controlled applicants consistent with the exception provided for in the broadcast incentive auction? Do other factors demonstrate good cause for such relief, or some other form of relief? Commenters are encouraged to identify circumstances of this auction that should guide us in developing application procedures under the current competitive bidding rules, including specific aspects of the auction application process and processing procedures, the nature of the permits to be awarded, or other relevant considerations.
14. The Bureaus, under delegated authority, seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of bidding in Auction 99.
15.
16.
17. The Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. Under this proposal, the Bureaus may change the amount of time for the bidding rounds, the amount of time between rounds, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon bidding activity and other factors. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal. Commenters on this issue should address the role of the bidding schedule in managing the pace of the auction, specifically discussing the tradeoffs in managing auction pace by bidding schedule changes, by changing the activity requirements or bid amount parameters, or by using other means.
18.
19. Further, the Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to exercise any of the following options during Auction 99. (1) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, no bidder withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or no bidder places any new bid on a construction permit for which it is not the provisionally winning bidder, which means that, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a construction permit for which it is the provisionally winning bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule. (2) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, no bidder withdraws a provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction), or no bidder places any new bid on a construction permit that already has a provisionally winning bid, which means that, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on an FCC-held construction permit (a construction permit that does not already have a provisionally winning bid) would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule. (3) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that combines options (1) and (2). (4) The auction would close after a specified number of additional rounds (special stopping rule) to be announced by the Bureaus. If the Bureaus invoke this special stopping rule, they will accept bids in the specified final round(s), after which the auction will close. (5) The auction would remain open even if no bidder places any new bid, applies a waiver, or withdraws any provisionally winning bid (if withdrawals are permitted in this auction). In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had applied a waiver. The activity rule will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use a waiver.
20. The Bureaus propose to exercise these options only in certain circumstances, for example, where the auction is proceeding unusually slowly or quickly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time or will close prematurely. Before exercising these options, the Bureaus are likely to attempt to change the pace of the auction. For example, the Bureaus may adjust the pace of bidding by changing the number of bidding rounds per day and/or the minimum acceptable bids. The Bureaus proposed to retain the discretion to exercise any of these options with or without prior announcement during the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
21.
22.
23. The Bureaus further propose that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine its initial bidding eligibility in bidding units. The Bureaus propose to assign each construction permit a specific number of bidding units, equal to one bidding unit per dollar of the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice. The number of bidding units for a given construction permit is fixed and does not change during the auction as prices change. If an applicant is found to be qualified to bid on more than one permit in Auction 99, such a bidder may place bids on multiple construction permits, provided that the total number of bidding units associated with those construction permits does not exceed the bidder's current eligibility. A bidder cannot increase its eligibility during the auction; it can only maintain its eligibility or decrease its eligibility. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount and hence its initial bidding eligibility, an applicant must determine the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to bid (or hold provisionally winning bids) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment amount covering that total number of bidding units. The Bureaus request comment on these proposals.
24.
25.
26. The FCC auction bidding system will assume that a bidder that does not meet the activity requirement would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver at the end of any bidding round in which a bidder's activity is below the minimum required unless (1) the bidder has no activity rule waivers remaining or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the activity requirement. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the bidder's current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly curtailing or eliminating the ability to place additional bids in the auction.
27. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding round by using the reduce eligibility function in the FCC auction bidding system. In this case, the bidder's eligibility would be permanently reduced to bring it into compliance with the specified activity requirement. Reducing eligibility is an irreversible action; once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder cannot regain its lost bidding eligibility.
28. Under the proposed simultaneous stopping rule, a bidder may apply an activity rule waiver proactively as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder proactively were to apply an activity rule waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the FCC auction bidding system) during a bidding round in which no bids are placed or withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction), the auction would remain open and the bidder's eligibility would be preserved.
29.
30. A minimum opening bid is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. Because it is an effective tool for accelerating the competitive bidding process, the Bureaus propose minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 99 determined by taking into account the type of service and class of facility offered, market size, population covered by the proposed broadcast facility, and recent broadcast transaction data. Attachment A of the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice lists a proposed minimum opening bid amount for each construction permit available in Auction 99. The Bureaus seek comment on the minimum opening bid amounts specified in Attachment A of the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice.
31. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bid amounts will result in unsold construction permits, are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. The Bureaus ask commenters to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested amounts or formulas for reserve prices or minimum opening bids. In establishing the minimum opening bid amounts, the Bureaus particularly seek comment on factors that could reasonably have an impact on bidders' valuation of the broadcast spectrum, including the type of service offered, market size, population covered by the proposed broadcast facility, and any other relevant factors.
32.
33. The first of the acceptable bid amounts is called the minimum acceptable bid amount. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount until there is a provisionally winning bid for the construction permit. After there is a provisionally winning bid for a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount will be a certain percentage higher. The percentage used for this calculation, the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage, is multiplied by the provisionally winning bid amount, and the resulting amount is added to the provisionally winning bid amount. If, for example, the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage is 10 percent, then the provisionally winning bid amount is multiplied by 10 percent. The result of that calculation is added to the provisionally winning bid amount, and that sum is rounded using the Commission's standard rounding procedure for auctions. If bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction, in the case of a construction permit for which the provisionally winning bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid amount will equal the second highest bid received for the construction permit.
34. The FCC will calculate the eight additional bid amounts using the minimum acceptable bid amount and an additional bid increment percentage. The minimum acceptable bid amount is multiplied by the additional bid increment percentage, and that result, rounded, is the additional increment amount. The first additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount plus the additional increment amount. The second additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount plus two times the additional increment amount; the third additional acceptable bid amount is the minimum acceptable bid amount plus three times the additional increment amount; etc. If, for example, the additional bid increment percentage is 5 percent, then the calculation of the additional increment amount is (minimum acceptable bid amount) * (0.05), rounded. The first additional acceptable bid amount equals (minimum acceptable bid amount) + (additional increment amount); the second additional acceptable bid amount equals (minimum acceptable bid amount) + (2 * (additional increment amount)); the third additional acceptable bid amount equals (minimum acceptable bid amount) + (3 * (additional increment amount)); etc. The Bureaus will round the results using the Commission's standard rounding procedures for auctions.
35. For Auction 99, the Bureaus propose to use a minimum acceptable bid increment percentage of 10 percent. This means that the minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be approximately 10 percent greater than the provisionally winning bid amount for the construction permit. To calculate the additional acceptable bid amounts, the Bureaus propose to use an additional bid increment percentage of 5 percent. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
36. The Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bid amounts, the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage, the additional bid increment percentage, and the number of acceptable bid amounts if the Bureaus determine that circumstances so dictate. Further, the Bureaus retain the discretion to do so on a construction-permit-by-construction-permit basis. The Bureaus also propose to retain the discretion to limit (a) the amount by which a minimum acceptable bid for a construction permit may increase compared with the corresponding provisionally winning bid, and (b) the amount by which an additional bid amount may increase compared with the immediately preceding acceptable bid amount. For example, the Bureaus could set a $1,000 limit on increases in minimum acceptable bid amounts over provisionally winning bids. Thus, if calculating a minimum acceptable bid using the minimum acceptable bid increment percentage results in a minimum acceptable bid amount that is $1,200 higher than the provisionally winning bid on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount would instead be capped at $1,000 above the provisionally winning bid. The Bureaus seek comment on the circumstances under which the Bureaus should employ such a limit, factors the Bureaus should consider when determining the dollar amount of the limit, and the tradeoffs in setting such a limit or changing other parameters, such as changing the minimum acceptable bid percentage, the bid increment percentage, or the number of acceptable bid amounts. If the Bureaus exercise this discretion, they will alert bidders by announcement in the FCC auction bidding system during the auction. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
37.
38. The auction bidding system assigns a random number to each bid when the bid is entered. If identical high bid amounts are submitted on a construction permit in any given round (
39. A provisionally winning bid will be retained until there is a higher bid on the construction permit at the close of a subsequent round, unless the provisionally winning bid is withdrawn (if bid withdrawals are permitted in this auction). As a reminder, provisionally winning bids count toward a bidder's activity level for purposes of the activity rule.
40.
41. The Bureaus seek comment on whether bid withdrawals should be permitted in Auction 99. When permitted in an auction, bid withdrawals provide a bidder with the option of withdrawing bids placed in prior rounds that have become provisionally winning bids. A bidder would be able to withdraw its provisionally winning bids using the withdraw function in the FCC auction bidding system. A bidder that withdraws its provisionally winning bid(s), if permitted in this auction, is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of 47 CFR 1.2104(g) and 1.2109.
42. Based on the nature of the permits available in Auction 99 and on the experience of the Bureaus with past auctions of broadcast construction permits, the Bureaus propose to prohibit bidders from withdrawing any bid after the close of the round in which the bid was placed. The Bureaus made this proposal in light of the site- and applicant-specific nature and wide geographic dispersion of the permits available in this closed auction, which suggests that potential applicants for this auction will have limited opportunity to aggregate construction permits through the auction process because of the closed MX groups previously established. Thus, the Bureaus believe that it is unlikely that bidders will have a need to withdraw bids in this auction. Also, allowing bid withdrawals may encourage insincere bidding or increase opportunities for anti-competitive bidding in certain circumstances. The Bureaus also remain mindful that bid withdrawals, particularly those made late in this auction, could result in delays in licensing new FM translator stations and attendant delays in the offering of new broadcast service to the public. The Bureaus seek comment on their proposal to prohibit bid withdrawals in Auction 99.
43.
44. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(1), the amount of the interim bid withdrawal payment may range from 3 to 20 percent of the withdrawn bid amount. If bid withdrawals are allowed in Auction 99, the Bureaus propose that the interim bid withdrawal payment be 20 percent of the withdrawn bid. The Bureaus request comment on using 20 percent for calculating an interim bid withdrawal payment amount in Auction 99. Commenters advocating the use of bid withdrawals in Auction 99 should also address the percentage of the interim bid withdrawal payment.
45.
46. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Bureaus have prepared this Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in the Public Notice to supplement the Commission's Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses completed in the Broadcast First Report and Order and multiple other Commission rulemaking orders pursuant to which Auction 99 will be conducted. Written public comments are requested on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the same filing
47.
48.
49.
50.
51. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's Media Access Pro Radio Database as of January 30, 2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.92 percent) of 11,270 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Bureaus note, however, that the SBA size standard data does not enable the Bureaus to make a meaningful estimate of the number of small entities who may participate in Auction 99. There are a maximum of 26 entities that may become qualified bidders in Auction 99, in which applicant eligibility is closed. The specific procedures and minimum opening bid amounts on which comment is sought in the Auction 99 Comment Public Notice will affect directly all applicants participating in Auction 99.
52. In addition, the Bureaus note that they are unable to accurately develop an estimate of how many of these 26 entities are small businesses based on the number of small entities that applied to participate in prior broadcast auctions, because that information is not collected from applicants for broadcast auctions in which bidding credits are not based on an applicant's size (as is the case in auctions of licenses for wireless services). Potential eligible bidders in Auction 99 may include existing holders of broadcast station construction permits or licenses. In 2013, the Commission estimated that 97 percent of radio broadcasters met the SBA's prior definition of small business concern, based on annual revenues of $7 million. The SBA has since increased that revenue threshold to $38.5 million, which suggests that an even greater percentage of radio broadcasters would fall within the SBA's definition. Based on Commission data 4,635 (99.94%) of 4,638 a.m. radio stations have revenue of $38.5 million or less. Accordingly, based on this data, the Bureaus conclude that the majority of Auction 99 eligible bidders will likely meet the SBA's definition of a small business concern.
53.
54.
55. The Commission has taken steps to minimize any economic impact of its auction procedures on small businesses through among other things, the many resources it provides potential auction participants. Small entities and other auction participants may seek clarification of or guidance on complying with competitive bidding rules and procedures, reporting requirements, and the FCC's auction system. An FCC Auctions Hotline provides access to Commission staff for information about the auction process and procedures. The FCC Auctions Technical Support Hotline is another resource which provides technical assistance to applicants, including small business entities, on issues such as access to or navigation within the electronic FCC Form 175 and use of the FCC's auction system. Small entities may also utilize the web-based, interactive online tutorial produced by Commission staff for each auction to familiarize themselves with auction procedures, filing requirements, bidding procedures and other matters related to an auction. The Bureaus also make various databases and other sources of information, including the Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System, the Auctions program websites, and copies of Commission decisions, available to the public without charge, providing a low-cost mechanism for small businesses to conduct research prior to and throughout the auction. Prior to and at the close of Auction 99, the Bureaus will post public notices on the Auctions website, which articulate the procedures and deadlines. The Bureaus make this information easily accessible and without charge to benefit all Auction 99 applicants, including small businesses, thereby lowering their administrative costs to comply with the Commission's competitive bidding rules.
56. Prior to the start of bidding in each auction, eligible bidders are given an opportunity to become familiar with auction procedures and the bidding system by participating in a mock auction. Further, the Commission intends to conduct Auction 99 electronically over the internet using its web-based auction system that eliminates the need for bidders to be physically present in a specific location. Qualified bidders also have the option to place bids by telephone. These mechanisms are made available to facilitate participation in Auction 99 by all eligible bidders, and may result in significant cost savings for small business entities who utilize these alternatives. Moreover, the adoption of bidding procedures in advance of the auction, consistent with statutory directive, is designed to ensure that the auction will be administered predictably and fairly for all participants, including small businesses.
57. These proposed procedures for the conduct of Auction 99 constitute the more specific implementation of the competitive bidding rules contemplated by Parts 1 and 73 of the Commission's rules and the underlying rulemaking orders, including the Broadcast First Report and Order and relevant competitive bidding orders, and are fully consistent therewith.
58.
59. This proceeding has been designated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for comment; public meeting.
NHTSA is announcing a public meeting as part of the Agency's effort to seek public comments to identify any regulatory barriers in the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to the testing, compliance certification, and compliance verification of vehicles with Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) and certain unconventional interior designs. The Agency published a
NHTSA will hold the public meeting on March 6, 2018, in Washington, DC. The meeting will start at 10 a.m. and continue until 3:30 p.m., EST. Check-in (through security) will begin at 9 a.m. Attendees should arrive early enough to enable them to go through security by 9:50 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (Green Line Metro Station at Navy Yard) in the Conference Center. This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The meeting will also be webcast live, and a link to the actual webcast will be available on NHTSA's technical ADSs website
If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact us at
Although attendees will be given the opportunity to offer comments, the Agency is limiting comments to oral only. We may not be able to accommodate all attendees who wish to make oral comments and will arrange the speakers on a first-come, first-served basis. However, if time does not allow for all comments during the meeting, comments may be submitted to the docket and will carry the same weight during review and analysis.
Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to notify registered participants.
NHTSA will conduct the public meeting informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the meeting and keep the official record open for 30 days after the meeting to allow submission of supplemental information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter, and the transcript will also be posted in the docket when it becomes available. The webcast will be recorded and posted to the NHTSA website as well.
•
•
•
•
Part of NHTSA's responsibility in carrying out its safety mission is not only to develop and set new safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, but also to modify existing standards as necessary to respond to changing circumstances such as the introduction of new technologies. Examples of previous technological transitions that triggered the need to adapt and/or replace requirements in the FMVSS include the replacing of analog dashboards by digital ones, the replacing of mechanical control systems by electronic ones, and the first production of electric vehicles in appreciable numbers. The existing FMVSS can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR part 571.
Almost all of NHTSA's FMVSS were developed and established well before ADS vehicles became a practicable possibility. As a result, the minimum performance requirements and test procedures in many of the FMVSS are based on assumptions about drivers occupying and controlling the vehicle. If a vehicle is designed so that only an ADS can control it rather than the human driver, and vehicle designers modify the passenger compartment, then many of the original assumptions will likely be invalid for that vehicle, and some may be problematic from a testing perspective.
1. What are the different categories of barriers that the FMVSS potentially create to the testing, certification and compliance verification of a new ADS vehicle lacking manual driving controls? Examples of barrier categories include the following:
a. Test procedures that cannot be conducted for vehicles with ADSs and with innovative interior designs; and
b. performance requirements that may serve a reduced safety purpose or even no safety purpose at all for vehicles with ADSs and thus potentially impose more cost and more restrictions on design than are warranted.
The first of the above categories is the primary focus of this document. However, the Agency seeks comments on both categories of barriers. If you believe that there are still other barrier categories, please identify them.
2. NHTSA requests comments on the statement made in NHTSA's February 2016 letter of interpretation to Google: That if a FMVSS lacks a test procedure that is suitable for the Agency's use in verifying a manufacturer's certification of compliance with a provision in that FMVSS, the manufacturer cannot validly certify the compliance of its vehicles with that provision. Do commenters agree that each of the standards identified in the letter as needing to be amended before manufacturers can certify compliance with it must be amended in order to permit certification? Why or why not? If there are other solutions, please describe them.
3. Do you agree (or disagree) that the FMVSS provisions identified in the Volpe report or Google letter as posing barriers to testing and certification are, in fact, barriers? Please explain why.
4. Do commenters think there are FMVSS provisions that pose barriers to testing and certification of innovative new vehicle designs, but were
5. Are there ways to solve the problems that may be posed by any of these FMVSS provisions without conducting additional research? If so, what are they and why do you believe that no further research is necessary? For example, can some apparent problems be solved through interpretation? If so, which ones?
6. Similarly, are there ways to solve the problems that may be posed by any of these FMVSS provisions without rulemaking? For example, can some apparent problems be solved through interpretation without either additional research or through rulemaking? If so, which ones?
7. In contrast, if a commenter believes that legislation might be necessary to enable NHTSA to remove a barrier identified by the commenter, please explain why, and please identify the specific existing law that the commenter thinks should be changed and describe how it should be changed. If there are associated regulations that the commenter believes should be changed, please identify the specific CFR citation and explain why they need to be changed.
8. Many FMVSS contain test procedures that are based on the assumed presence of a human driver and will therefore likely need to be amended to accommodate vehicles that cannot be driven by humans. Other FMVSS test procedures may seem, based on a plain reading of their language, to accommodate vehicles that cannot be driven by humans, but it may nevertheless be unclear how NHTSA (or a manufacturer attempting to self-certify to the test) would instruct the vehicle to perform the test as written.
a. Do commenters believe that these procedures should apply to a vehicle that cannot be driven by a human? If so, why? If there are data to support this position, please provide it.
b. If not, can NHTSA test in some other manner? Please identify the alternative manner and explain why it would be appropriate.
9. What research would be necessary to determine how to instruct a vehicle with an ADS, but without manual means of control, to follow a driving test procedure? Is it possible to develop a single approach to inputting these “instructions” in a manner applicable to all vehicle designs and all FMVSS, or will the approach need to vary? If so, why and how? If commenters believe there is a risk of gaming, what would that risk be and how could it be reduced or prevented?
10. In lieu of the approaches suggested in questions 8 and 9, is there an alternative means of demonstrating equivalent level of safety that is reliable, objective and practicable?
11. For FMVSS that include test procedures that assume a human driver is seated in a certain seating position (for example, procedures that assess whether a rearview mirror provides an image in the correct location), should NHTSA simply amend the FMVSS to require, for instance, that “driver's seat” requirements apply to any front seating position? If so, please explain why. If not, what research would need to be conducted to determine how NHTSA should amend those requirements?
12. A variety of FMVSS require safety-related dashboard telltales and other displays, if provided, to be visible to a human driver and controls to be within reach of that driver. Generally speaking, is there a safety need for the telltales and other displays in Table 1 and 2 of FMVSS No. 101 to be visible to any of the occupants in vehicles without manual driving controls? Commenters are requested to provide their own list of the telltales and other displays they believe are most relevant to meeting any potential safety need in those vehicles. For each item on that list, please answer the following questions:
a. Should the telltale or other display be required to be visible to one or more vehicle occupants in vehicles without manual driving controls?
b. If there is a need for continued visibility, to the occupant(s) of which seating position(s) should the telltale or other display be visible?
c. Does the answer to the question about the continued need for a telltale or other display to be visible to the occupant of a vehicle without manual driving controls change if a manufacturer equips the vehicle with a device like an “emergency stop button”? Why or why not?
d. Would the informational safety needs of the occupants of vehicles with ADSs differ depending on whether the vehicle has a full set of manual driving controls, just an emergency stop button, or no controls whatsoever?
e. Conversely, if a vehicle is designed such that it can be driven only by an ADS, does the ADS need to be provided with some or all the same information currently required to be provided for a human driver? For example, does the ADS need to know if the tires are underinflated? Why or why not?
f. If commenters believe that it would enhance safety if a vehicle's ADS were required to receive information similar to some or all of that currently required to be provided to human drivers by telltales and other displays, what research needs to be conducted to develop the kinds of objective and practicable performance requirements or test procedures that would enable manufacturers and the Agency to evaluate whether that information was provided to and understood by the ADS?
13. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there is any safety need for the occupants of fully self-driving vehicles to continue to have any access to any of the non-driving controls (
a. If there is a safety need for the occupants of fully self-driving vehicles to have access to any of the existing vehicle non-driving controls, please identify those controls and explain the safety need.
b. Do commenters believe that research should be conducted to determine whether any additional controls (such as an emergency stop button) might be necessary for safety or public acceptance if manual driving controls are removed from fully-self-driving vehicles? Why or why not, and what is the basis for your belief?
c. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there is any safety need for the occupants of fully self-driving vehicles to continue to be able to control exterior lighting like turn signals and headlamp beam switching devices, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if NHTSA is going to conduct research on what exterior lighting continues to be needed for safety when a human is not driving, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
14. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there is a safety need for the occupants of vehicles with ADSs, but without manual driving controls, to be able to see to the side and behind those vehicles using mirrors or cameras, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine how NHTSA would test the ability of a vehicle's ADS to “see” around and behind the vehicle as well as (or better than) a human driver would, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
15. Do the FMVSS create testing and certification issues for vehicles with ADSs other than those discussed above? If so, which FMVSS do so and why do you believe they present such issues? For example, FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” could potentially pose obstacles to certifying the compliance of a vehicle that uses exterior lighting and messaging, through words or symbols, to communicate to nearby pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, such as at a 4-way stop intersection, the vehicle's awareness of their presence and the vehicle's willingness to cede priority of movement to any of those people. If research is needed to eliminate the barriers in an appropriate way, please describe the research and explain why it is needed. Are there other lighting issues that should be considered? For example, what lighting will be needed to ensure the proper functioning of the different types of vehicle sensors, especially cameras whose functions include reading traffic control signs?
16. If occupants of vehicles with ADSs, especially those without manual driving controls, are less likely to sit in what is now called the driver's seating position or are less likely to sit in seats that are facing forward, how should these factors affect existing requirements for crashworthiness safety features?
17. If vehicles with ADSs have emergency controls that can be accessed through unconventional means, such as a smart phone or multi-purpose display and have unconventional interiors, how should the Agency address those controls?
18. Are there any specific regulatory barriers related to small businesses that NHTSA should consider, specifically those that may help facilitate small business participation in this emerging technology?
19. For issues about FMVSS barriers that NHTSA needs research to resolve, do commenters believe that there are specific items that would be better addressed through research by outside stakeholders, such as industry or research organizations, instead of by NHTSA itself?
a. Which issues is industry better equipped to undertake on its own, and why? Which issues are research organizations or other stakeholders better equipped to undertake on their own, and why?
b. What research is needed to determine which types of safety performance metrics should be used to evaluate a particular safety capability and to develop a test procedure for evaluating how well a vehicle performs in terms of those metrics?
c. Which questions is NHTSA better equipped to undertake and why? For example, would NHTSA, as the regulator, be the more appropriate party to conduct research needed to determine what performance threshold to require vehicles to meet with respect to that metric? Why or why not?
d. What research has industry, research organizations, and other stakeholders done related to barriers to testing and certification? What research are they planning to do? With respect to research planned but not yet completed, please identify the research and state the expected starting and end dates for that research.
e. How can NHTSA, industry, states, research organizations, and other stakeholders work together to ensure that, if the research on these issues were eventually to lead to rulemaking, it is done with the rigor and thoroughness that NHTSA would need to meet its statutory obligations, regardless of who performs it (
20. For the issues identified above or by commenters, which merit the most attention? How should the Agency prioritize its research and any follow-on rulemakings to remove the barriers to testing and certification?
21. Correcting barriers associated with the track testing of motor vehicles will
a. FMVSS No. 126 specifies the use of an automated steering machine that depends on a vehicle's steering wheel to steer vehicles when they are tested for compliance. NHTSA will need to determine how to amend the standard to enable the Agency to conduct stability control testing in vehicles that lack a steering wheel. Further, if NHTSA is going to conduct research to consider how to change the “sine with dwell” test procedure for FMVSS No. 126 so that steering wheel angle need not be measured at the steering wheel in determining compliance with the standard, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
b. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to develop a performance test to verify how a vehicle is activating its service brakes, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there continues to be a safety need to maintain a human-operable service brake, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
22. Are there industry standards, existing or in development, that may be suitable for incorporation by reference by NHTSA in accordance with the standards provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and Conformity Assessment Activities?”
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated by 49 CFR 1.95.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes management measures to implement special management zones for 13 New Jersey artificial reefs under the black sea bass provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The implementing regulations for the special management zones require NMFS to publish proposed measures to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of these measures is to reduce user group conflicts and help maintain the intended socioeconomic benefits of the artificial reefs to the maximum extent practicable.
Comments must be received by March 15, 2018.
NMFS prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this action that describe the proposed measures and other considered alternatives and analyzes of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the the draft EA and the IRFA are available upon request from Travis Ford, NOAA/NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The special management zone measures document is also accessible via the internet at:
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0150, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has requested and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has recommended that NMFS designate 13 New Jersey artificial reef sites, currently permitted in Federal waters by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as special management zones (SMZs) under the applicable regulations implementing the Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP), 50 CFR 648.148.
The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively under the provisions of the FMP developed by the Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. General regulations governing fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. also appear at 50 CFR part 648. States manage these three species within 3 nautical miles (4.83 km) of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The applicable species-specific Federal regulations govern vessels and individual fishermen fishing in Federal waters of the EEZ, as well as vessels possessing a summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass Federal charter/party vessel permit, regardless of where they fish.
On November 6, 2015, the NJDEP requested that the Council designate 13 artificial reef sites, currently permitted in Federal waters by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, as SMZs under the regulations implementing the Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. The SMZ request noted that the NJDEP has received complaints from rod and reel anglers regarding fouling of their fishing gear in commercial pots and lines on ocean reef sites for more than 20 years. The request also noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Sportfish Restoration Program (SRP), which was the primary funding
The Council process for devising SMZ management measures is to recommend measures to NMFS for rulemaking, and is described in the following section. All meetings are open to the public and the materials used during such meetings, as well as any documents created to summarize the meeting results, are public information and typically posted on the Council's website (
The SMZ recommendations from the Council were established under the FMP's black sea bass provisions (§ 648.148). A monitoring committee, consisting of representatives from the Council, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, was formed to review the NJDEP SMZ request. The FMP's implementing regulations require the monitoring committee to review scientific and other relevant information to evaluate the SMZ requests and prepare a written report, considering the following criteria:
(1) Fairness and equity;
(2) Promotion of conservation;
(3) Avoidance of excessive shares;
(4) Consistency with the objectives of Amendment 9 to the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law;
(5) The natural bottom in and surrounding potential SMZs; and
(6) Impacts on historical uses.
The Council considered the Monitoring Committee's recommendations and any public comment in finalizing its recommendations. The Council forwarded its final recommendations to NMFS for review. NMFS is required to review the Council's recommendations to ensure that they are consistent with the FMP and all applicable laws and Executive Orders before ultimately implementing measures for Federal waters.
The timeline for establishing the SMZs is summarized here: The NJDEP requested SMZ status for the artificial reefs in November 2015; the Council and NMFS established a monitoring committee to review the request in February 2016; the monitoring committee provided a report to the Council evaluating the SMZ request at its October 5, 2016, meeting in Galloway, NJ.
Following this meeting, the Council held three public hearings on the proposed SMZs (Brooklyn, NY, November 16, 2016; Toms River, NJ, November 16, 2016; and Cape May, NJ, November 17, 2016), and the Council made final recommendations on the SMZs at its December 21, 2016, meeting in Baltimore, Maryland. NMFS subsequently has reviewed the Council's recommendations through the development of an EA (see
NMFS is proposing the Council's recommended measures that would apply in the Federal waters of the EEZ and to all vessels: That all 13 New Jersey artificial reefs be established as year-round SMZs. Within the established areas of the SMZs, all vessels would only be allowed to conduct fishing by handline, rod and reel, or spear fishing (including the taking of fish by hand).
The boundaries of the proposed SMZs artificial reef sites encompass 19.71 nm
The coordinates of the 13 SMZ reef areas proposed to be created by this rule would be codified at 50 CFR 648.148(b)(2). This requires a re-organization of the existing SMZ regulations in CFR 648.148(b); no substantive changes are proposed for those provisions.
Figure 1. shows the location of the 13 proposed artificial reef sites off the coast of New Jersey.
This proposed rule includes a revision to the regulatory text to address text that is unnecessary, outdated, unclear, or NMFS could otherwise improve. NMFS proposes this changes consistent with section 305(d) of the MSA which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the MSA. The revision, at § 648.148(a), would clarify the Council may prohibit or restrain the use of specific types of fishing gear that are not compatible with the purpose of the artificial reef or fish attraction device or other habitat modification within the SMZ.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which is included in the EA and supplemented by information contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the IRFA follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (see
NJDEP requested and the Council recommended that 13 New Jersey artificial reef sites, currently permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the EEZ, be designated as SMZs to limit recreational/commercial gear conflicts on the artificial reefs, and to maintain FWS SRP funding for the building, monitoring, and maintenance of the artificial reefs.
The action in this proposed rule would prohibit certain types fishing in the proposed SMZs. This would reduce current and/or future potential for recreational/commercial gear conflicts on the 13 New Jersey artificial reefs in order to maintain access to the reefs for recreational fishing. This action is proposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial finfishing or shellfishing business as a firm with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million. A small for-hire recreational fishing business is defined as a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million.
This rule would apply to all Federal permit holders except recreational for-hire permit holders and commercial permit holders using hand gear or dive gear. While virtually all commercial fishing permit holders employing gear other than pot/trap gear would technically be regulated if the artificial reefs are granted SMZ status, the vast majority of the commercial fishing effort on these artificial reefs comes from the pot/trap gear sector. Therefore, only pot/trap gear vessel trips are considered in this analysis. Hand gear and dive gear activities would continue to be allowed under SMZ designation, and vessels using other mobile gears and fixed gears stay clear of the reef site areas to avoid bottom hang-ups with reef materials. Additionally, not all business entities that hold Federal fishing permits fish in the areas identified as potential SMZs. Those who actively participate (
Based on the ownership data classification process described above, the 52 directly affected participating commercial fishing vessels were owned by 45 unique fishing business entities. All revenue earned by these businesses was derived from finfishing or shellfishing, and no revenue was earned from for-hire recreational fishing. Thus, all 45 of the potentially affected businesses are classified as commercial fishing business entities.
Average annual gross revenue estimates calculated from 2013-2015 Northeast region dealer data indicate that only one of the potentially affected business entities under the preferred alternative would be considered large according to the SBA size standards. In other words, one business, classified as a commercial fishing business, averaged more than $11 million annually in gross revenues from all of its fishing activities during 2013-2015. Therefore, 44 of the 45 potentially affected business entities are considered small and one business entity is considered large.
This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
This proposed action will not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
The Council only considered the proposed action (Alternative 2) and the No Action alternative (Alternative 1). However, NMFS also considered a slightly less restrictive alternative after receiving the Council's recommendation (Alternative 3). Under the No Action alternative, vessels would still be able to fish with pot/trap gear on the 13 artificial reef sites. Alternative 3 would designate 11 of the 13 artificial reefs as SMZs (excludes Shark River and Wildwood); 41 unique fishing business entities were estimated to have landings within the coordinates of the 11 reef sites from 2013-2015. The Shark River and Wildwood reef site were excluded under this alternative because these sites had higher percentage of commercial effort when compared to the percentage of recreational effort. One of the potentially affected business entities under this alternative would be considered large (the same entity identified as large under the preferred alternative).
Table 14 compares the number of potentially affected business entities by percent of total average annual gross revenue landed within the actual latitude and longitude coordinates of the two alternatives. Under both the preferred alternative and the Alternative 3, all commercial fishing businesses categorized as small in this assessment obtained less than 5 percent of their total average annual gross revenues from landings within the coordinates of the reef sites. The only business entity defined as large for this assessment earned less than 0.5 percent of its total average annual gross revenues from landings at the reef sites.
Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative because it would reduce gear conflicts on all 13 of the artificial reefs. For Alternatives 1 and 3, gear conflicts would remain on all reefs not designated as SMZs. Alternative 2 would result in slight positive economic impacts to the recreational fleet and likely have slight negative to negligible economic effects on the commercial fishery compared to the No Action alternative. Further, under Alternative 2, the program to maintain the artificial reefs would not be in jeopardy of losing its USFWS funding.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 15, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public event.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is announcing the following event, “As a Matter of Open Government,” in recognition of National Sunshine Week. The Census Bureau will hold public speaker sessions to educate and engage in open dialogue about our transparency efforts.
The public speaker sessions will be held on Wednesday, March 14 and Thursday, March 15, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The Census Bureau also will co-host a kick-off event with the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Office of Privacy and Open Government on Tuesday, March 13, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Department of Commerce Research Library, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. Registration is free, but advanced registration is required for both events/sessions. (See directions below under
The public speaker sessions will be held in the U.S. Census Bureau Training Room, T-5, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.
Jennifer Goode or Mary Kendall-Washington at the Policy Coordination Office, Open Government Program: 301-763-6440 or
Individuals may attend the kick-off event at the DOC Research Library as seating capacity permits. The kick-off event will also be available for public observation via call-in. Individuals seeking to attend the kick-off must register at
The event will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodation, such as sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids, should call Mary-Kendall Washington at 301-763-6440 to request accommodations at least five business days in advance.
All registrants will be placed on a visitor list. All visitors for the event must provide a government-issued photo identification in order to enter the building. For logistical questions, call Angineh Torosiyan Hayter at 301-763-6440. Media interested in attending should call the Census Bureau's Public Information Office at 301-763-3030.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 19 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to ASF sunset provisions for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 1 if not activated within ten years from the month of approval and for Site 2 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.
On October 4, 2017, Lockheed Martin Corporation Space Systems Company submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 123G, in Littleton, Colorado.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand FTZ 281 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
Panasonic Eco Solutions Solar New York America (PESSNY) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Buffalo, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 5, 2018.
The PESSNY facility is located within Subzone 23E. The facility is used for the production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels/modules. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt PESSNY from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, PESSNY would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to CSPV solar panels/modules (duty free). PESSNY would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Silicone sealant/cement; ethylene vinyl acetate film/resin sheets; polyolefin base plastic film/resin sheets; plastic polymer rolls of film; polypropylene corner protectors; low iron glass; copper connection tabs; nickel standard conductive film; tin/silver/copper alloy soldering wire; plastic junction boxes; silver-plated copper ribbon; resin-laminated, silver-plated copper ribbon/tabs; polyester tape; silver paste; and silicon wafers. (duty rates range from duty free to 5.8%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 26, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
On October 10, 2017, the Mississippi Coast Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 92, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Vision Technologies Marine, Inc., within Site 6, in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
(1) Any foreign steel mill products admitted to the zone for the Vision Technologies Marine, Inc., activity, including plate, angles, shapes, channels, rolled steel stock, bars, pipes and tubes, not incorporated into merchandise otherwise classified, and which is used in manufacturing, shall be subject to full customs duties in accordance with applicable law, unless the Executive Secretary determines that the same item is not then being produced by a domestic steel mill.
(2) Vision Technologies Marine, Inc., shall meet its obligation under 15 CFR 400.13(b) by annually advising the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary as to significant new contracts with appropriate information concerning foreign purchases otherwise dutiable, so that the FTZ Board may consider whether any foreign dutiable items are being imported for manufacturing in the zone primarily because of FTZ procedures and whether the FTZ Board should consider requiring customs duties to be paid on such items.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Jindal Poly Films Limited made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value, but that SRF Limited did not. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5255.
On August 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 to January 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The deadline for the final results of this administrative review is now February 6, 2018.
The products covered by the AD order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film), whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET Film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the AD order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case brief and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is attached to this notice as an Appendix.
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding
Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of review. For Jindal, we will base the assessment rate for the corresponding entries on the margin listed above.
For entries of subject merchandise produced by Jindal or SRF for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 5.71 percent,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be as follows 1.57 percent for merchandise exported by Jindal and zero percent for merchandise exported by SRF; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period for that company; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any other completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate of 5.71 percent, which is the all others rate established by Commerce in the LTFV investigation adjusted for the export subsidy rate in the countervailing duty investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines, based on the application of adverse facts available, that Bonuts Hardware Logistic Co., Ltd. (Bonuts), PT Enterprise, Inc./Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, Inc. (PT/Pro-Team), and Unicatch Industrial Co. Ltd. (Unicatch) made sales of certain steel nails (nails) from Taiwan at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) of May 20, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
Applicable February 13, 2018.
Scott Hoefke or Victoria Cho, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-5075, respectively.
On August 7, 2017, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by this order is certain steel nails. The certain steel nails subject to the order are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to these orders also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7907.00.60.00, 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purpose, the written description is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, can be found at the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the
On December 12, 2016, Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (Mid Continent), a domestic producer and interested party, timely withdrew its review request for Yusen Logistics (Taiwan) Ltd.
We continue to find that Bonuts. and PT/Pro-Team failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in responding to Commerce's requests for information. Furthermore, for these final results, we also find that Unicatch failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's requests for information. Thus, we find that the application of adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)-(b) of the Act, is warranted with respect to Bonuts, PT/Pro-Team, and Unicatch. For a full description of the methodology and rationale underlying our conclusions,
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual review in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, the margins for all individually examined respondents were determined entirely on the basis of facts available. As discussed in further detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have determined under “any reasonable method” to apply to companies not selected for individual examination in this review the rate determined for all mandatory respondents. Accordingly, we assign to the non-selected companies the dumping margin of 78.17 percent.
Commerce determines that the following margins exist for the period May 20, 2015 through June 30, 2016:
Pursuant
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the methodology described in the “Rates for Non-Examined Companies” section, above.
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Bonuts, PT/Pro-Team, Unicatch, or the non-examined companies for which the producer did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed in these final results will be equal to the rates established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 2.16 percent,
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Financial Management Survey for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by March 15, 2018.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from February 13, 2018:
(1)
(2)
Douglas Godesky, Senior Grants Officer, at 202-606-6967 or email to
OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-76 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Finland has requested a possible sale of one hundred (100) RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II Plus (+) Extended Range (ER) Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles, twelve (12) RGM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles, twelve (12) RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Surface-Launched Upgrade Kits, four (4) RTM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II Grade B Exercise Surface-Launched Missiles, and four (4) RTM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Exercise Surface-Launched Missiles. Also included are containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical support. The estimated total case value is $622 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner nation that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
Finland intends to use the missiles on its Hamina class ships, Multirole Corvette ships, and Coastal Batteries. The missiles will provide enhanced capabilities in effective defense of critical sea lanes. The proposed sale of the missiles and support will increase the Finnish Navy's maritime partnership potential and increase regional security capability. Finland has not purchased Harpoon Block II+ ER previously, but will have no difficulty incorporating this capability into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require up to 21 U.S. Government personnel to travel to Finland providing support over a period of ten years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The RGM-84Q Harpoon Block II+ ER Surface-Launched missile system is classified SECRET. The Harpoon missile is a non-nuclear tactical weapon system. It provides a day, night, and adverse weather, standoff air-to-surface capability and is an effective Anti-Surface Warfare missile. The RGM-84Q incorporates components, software, and technical design information that is considered sensitive. The following components being conveyed by the proposed sale that are considered sensitive include:
a. Classified CONFIDENTIAL:
b. Classified up to SECRET:
These elements are essential to the ability of the Harpoon missile to selectively engage hostile targets under a wide range of operations, tactical and environmental conditions. The Harpoon is a Coastal Target Suppressions land attack weapon.
2. The RGM-84L Harpoon Block II Surface-Launched missile system is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The Harpoon missile is a non-nuclear tactical weapon system currently in service in the U.S. Navy and in 29 other foreign nations. It provides a day, night, and adverse weather, standoff air-to-surface capability and is an effective Anti-Surface Warfare missile. The RGM-84L incorporates components, software, and technical design information that are considered sensitive. The following components being conveyed by the proposed sale that are considered sensitive and are classified CONFIDENTIAL are:
Classified CONFIDENTIAL:
3. The RTM-84 Exercise Harpoon Surface-Launched missile is classified up to SECRET. The RTM-84 Exercise Harpoon incorporates components, software, and technical design information that are considered sensitive. The following components being conveyed by the proposed sale that are considered sensitive include:
a. Classified CONFIDENTIAL:
b. Classified up to SECRET:
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of
5. A determination has been made that Finland can provide substantially the same degree of protection for sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sustainment program is necessary to the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the policy justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed on this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Finland.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District (Corps) is preparing an integrated Feasibility Report/Tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed New York New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study (NYNJHAT). The study is assessing the feasibility of coastal storm risk management alternatives to be implemented within the authorized study area with a specific emphasis on the New York New Jersey Harbor, including Raritan Bay, the tidally-affected stretches of the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, and the Hudson River to Troy, New York.
Pertinent information about the study can be found at:
Interested parties are welcome to send written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of issues to be evaluated within the Tiered EIS to Nancy J. Brighton, Chief, Watershed Section, Environmental Analysis Branch, Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, Room 2151, NY 10279-0090; Phone: (917) 790-8703; email:
Questions about the overall NYNJHAT study should be directed to Bryce Wisemiller, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Programs and Project Management Division, Civil Works Programs Branch, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2127, New York, NY 10279-0090; Phone: (917) 790-8307; email:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), in partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as the non-federal sponsors, are undertaking this study. In addition, the City of New York is a non-federal partner. The NYNJHAT study area, which encompasses the New York metropolitan area, is highly vulnerable to damage from coastal storm surge, wave attack, erosion, and intense rainfall-storm water runoff events that cause riverine or inland flooding, which can exacerbate coastal flooding. The NYNJHAT study is authorized under Public Law 84-71, June 15, 1955 (69 Stat. 132) to conduct an investigation into potential coastal storm risk management solutions. A Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) was executed in 2016 with the NYSDEC and NJDEP.
The study area encompasses approximately 2,150 square miles and includes parts of Bergen, Passaic, Morris, Essex, Hudson, Union, Somerset, Middlesex, and Monmouth Counties in New Jersey and Rensselaer, Albany, Columbia, Greene, Duchess, Ulster, Putnam, Orange, Westchester, Rockland, Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings, Richmond, and Nassau Counties in New York. The study area extends upstream of the Hudson River to the federal lock and dam at Troy, New York, the Passaic River to the Dundee Dam, and the Hackensack River to the Oradell Reservoir.
The Corps, the NYSDEC and the NJDEP hosted three agency workshop meetings in January and February 2017, with representatives from federal and state agencies, as well as representatives from local agencies and towns. The Corps, NYSDEC and NJDEP are anticipating hosting a NEPA Scoping Meetings in March and April 2018. Public notices announcing the meeting date, time, location and agenda will be published in the appropriate local newspapers, municipality web pages, and the Corps' New York District web page (see STUDY WEB PAGE and
A scoping comment period of 30 days will be established from the scheduled date of the meeting to allow agencies, organizations and individuals to submit comments, questions and/or concerns regarding the Feasibility Study. Comments, concerns and information submitted to the Corps will be evaluated and considered during the development of the Draft EIS.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead federal agency for the preparation of a Tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to meet the requirements of the NEPA and the NEPA Implementing Regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508). The Corps has invited the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Park Service, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be Cooperating or Participating Agencies on this study. The preparation of a Tiered EIS will be coordinated with New York State, New Jersey State and local municipalities with discretionary authority relative to the proposed actions. The Draft integrated Feasibility Report/Tiered EIS is currently scheduled for distribution to the public Summer 2018.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
You may also register online at
n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
p.
The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with Commission and are available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The proposed project would utilize the Corps' existing Rufus Woods Lake Reservoir, and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 300-foot-diameter, 20-foot-tall lined corrugated steel tank upper reservoir with a storage capacity of 26.5 acre-feet; (2) a 3-foot-diameter, 3,400-foot-long above-ground carbon steel penstock transitioning to a 3-foot-diameter, 2,700-foot-long buried carbon steel penstock; (3) a 77-foot-long, 77-foot-wide structural steel power platform housing five 2,400 horsepower vertical turbine pumps, one 5 megawatt twin-jet Pelton turbine and synchronous generator, and accompanying electrical equipment; (4) five vertical turbine pump intakes, each fitted with a 27-inch-diameter by 94-inch-long T-style fish screen; (5) a 2,500-foot-long, 24.9-kilovolt transmission line. which would be partially buried and partially affixed to the penstock, interconnecting to an existing non-project transmission line; (6) approximately 3,847 feet of gravel project access road; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is estimated to be 24 gigawatt-hours.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
n. Scoping Process
The Commission intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) in cooperation with the Corps
FERC staff will conduct one agency scoping meeting and one public meeting. The agency scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at
The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project environmental site
At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that should be analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.
The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the EA.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to address the August 22, 2017 Opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia regarding the Commission's environmental review of the Southeast Market Pipelines (SMP) Project.
The final SEIS estimates the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the SMP Project's customers' downstream facilities, describes the methodology used to determine these estimates, discusses context for understanding the magnitude of these emissions, describes the Commission's past policy on use of the Social Cost of Carbon tool, and as appropriate, addresses comments on the draft SEIS issued on September 27, 2017.
Commission staff will mail copies of the final SEIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Additionally, the final SEIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's website (
Additional information about the SMP Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
February 15, 2018, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
*
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's website at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
Office of Research and Development; Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of the designation of a new reference method for monitoring ambient air quality.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated one new reference method for measuring concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO
Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods and Measurements Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Phone: 919-541-7877. Email:
In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQS. A list of all reference or equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be found at
The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference method for measuring concentrations of NO
The new reference method for NO
RFNA-0118-249, “Environnement S. A. Model AC32e and AC32e* Chemiluminescent NO, NO
This application for a reference method determination for this NO
A representative test analyzer was tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in accordance with part 53, that this method should be designated as a reference method.
As a designated reference method, this method is acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, this method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations (
Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program,” EPA-454/B-13-003, (both
Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurements Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Designation of this reference method is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Background Checks for Contractor Employees (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2159.07, OMB Control No. 2030-0043) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2017-0752 online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Thomas Valentino, Policy Training and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4522; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Recordkeeping Requirements for Producers, Registrants and Applicants of Pesticides and Pesticide Devices under Section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (EPA ICR No. 0143.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2017-0640, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Michelle Stevenson, Office of Compliance, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Pesticides, Waste & Toxics Branch (2225A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4203; fax number: (202) 564-0085; email:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
T
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, and the Determination of
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice of charter establishment.
Pursuant to the Section 2203 of Public Law 114-322 (Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act)(Registry for Lead Exposure and Advisory Committee), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the establishment of the Lead Exposure and Prevention Advisory Committee. The Lead Exposure and Prevention Advisory Committee shall, at a minimum: (1) Review the Federal programs and services available to individuals and communities exposed to lead; (2) review current research on lead exposure to identify additional research needs; (3) review and identify best practices, or the need for best practices regarding lead screening and the prevention of lead poisoning; (4) identify effective services, including services relating to healthcare, education, and nutrition for individuals and communities affected by lead exposure and lead poisoning, including in consultation with, as appropriate, the lead exposure registry as established in Section 2203(b) of Public Law 114-322; and (5) undertake any other review or activities that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. This advisory committee will review research and Federal programs and services related to lead poisoning and to identify effective services and best practices for addressing and preventing lead exposures in communities.
Perri Ruckart, M.P.H., Epidemiologist, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, telephone (770) 488-3808;
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
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, and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
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, and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking nominations for membership on the ACBCYW. The ACBCYW consists of 15 experts in fields associated with breast cancer, disease prevention, early detection, diagnosis, public health, social marketing, genetic screening and counseling, treatment, rehabilitation, palliative care, and survivorship in young women, or in related disciplines with a specific focus on young women. Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the committee's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of breast health, breast cancer, disease prevention and risk reduction, survivorship (including metastatic breast cancer), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), or in related disciplines with a specific focus on young women. Persons with personal experience with early onset breast cancer are also eligible to apply. This includes, but may not be limited to breast cancer survivors <45 years of age and caregivers of said persons. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve up to four-year terms. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of ACBCYW objectives (
Nominations for membership on the ACBCYW must be received no later than March 26, 2018. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be mailed to Temeika L. Fairley, Ph.D. c/o ACBCYW Secretariat, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3719 North Peachtree Road, Building 100 Chamblee, Georgia 30341, or emailed (recommended) to
Temeika L. Fairley, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-76, Atlanta, Georgia 30341; 770-488-4518;
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for ACBCYW membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in December 2018, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address);
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
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, and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 81 FR 84583-84591, dated November 23, 2016) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the National Center for Environmental Health, Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the titles and mission and function statements for the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Assessment of Occupational Injury among Fire Fighters Using a Follow-back Survey.” The purpose of this project is to collect follow-back telephone interview data from injured and exposed fire fighters treated in emergency departments (EDs) and produce a descriptive summary of these injuries and exposures.
CDC must receive written comments on or before April 16, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0015 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Assessment of Occupational Injury among Fire Fighters Using a Follow-back Survey—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Studies have reported that fire fighters have high rates of non-fatal injuries and illnesses as compared to the general worker population. As fire fighters undertake many critical public safety activities and are tasked with protecting the safety and health of the public, it follows that understanding and preventing injuries and exposures among fire fighters will have a benefit
As mandated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-596), the mission of NIOSH is to conduct research and investigations on occupational safety and health. Related to this mission, the purpose of this project is to conduct research that will provide a detailed description of non-fatal occupational injuries and exposures incurred by fire fighters. This information will offer detailed insight into events that lead to the largest number of nonfatal injuries and exposures among fire fighters. The project will use two related data sources. The first source is data abstracted from medical records of fire fighters treated in a nationally stratified sample of emergency departments. These data are routinely collected through the occupational supplement to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (Neiss-Work). The second data source, for which NIOSH is seeking OMB approval for three years, is responses to telephone interview surveys of the injured and exposed fire fighters identified within Neiss-Work.
The proposed telephone interview surveys will supplement Neiss-Work data with an extensive description of fire fighter injuries and exposures, including worker characteristics, injury types, injury circumstances, injury outcomes, and use of personal protective equipment. Previous reports describing occupational injuries and exposures to fire fighters provide limited details on specific regions or sub-segments of the population. As compared to these earlier studies, the scope of the telephone interview data will be broader as it includes sampled cases nationwide and has no limitations in regards to type of employment (
The sample size for the telephone interview survey is estimated to be approximately 240 fire fighters annually for the proposed three year duration of the study. This is based on the number of fire fighters identified in previous years of Neiss-Work data and a 30 to 40% response rate that is comparable to the rate of previously conducted National Electronic Injury Surveillance System telephone interview studies. Each telephone interview will take approximately 30 minutes to complete, resulting in an annualized burden estimate of 120 hours. Using the routine Neiss-Work data, an analysis of all identified EMS workers will be performed to determine if there are differences between the telephone interview responder and non-responder groups.
The Division of Safety Research (DSR) within NIOSH is conducting this project. DSR has a strong interest in improving surveillance of fire fighter injuries and exposures to provide the information necessary for effectively targeting and implementing prevention efforts and, consequently, reducing occupational injuries and exposures to fire fighters. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will also contribute to this project, as they are responsible for coordinating the collection of all Neiss-Work data and for overseeing the collection of all telephone interview data.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking nominations for membership on the BSC, NCEH/ATSDR. The BSC, NCEH/ATSDR consists of 16 experts in fields associated with environmental public health or in related disciplines (
Nominations for membership on the BSC, NCEH/ATSDR must be received no later than April 29, 2018. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be mailed to Shirley Little, Program Analyst, NCEH/ATSDR, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway (MS-F45), Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Email addresses:
Shirley Little, NCEH/ATSDR Program Analyst, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway,
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for BSC, NCEH/ATSDR membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in June, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address)
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
1. A survey of individuals providing care for children under the age of 13 in a residential setting (Home-based Provider Interview),
2. A survey of providers of care to children ages 0 through 5 years of age (not yet in kindergarten) in a non-residential setting (Center-based Provider Interview), and
3. A survey conducted with individuals employed in center-based child care programs working directly with children in classrooms (Workforce Interview).
Both the home-based and center-based provider surveys will require a screener to determine eligibility for the main survey.
The 2019 NSECE data collection efforts will provide urgently needed information about the supply of child care and early education available to families across all income levels, including providers serving low-income families of various racial, ethnic, language, and cultural backgrounds, in diverse geographic areas. The provider data will include programs that do or do not participate in the child care subsidy program, are regulated, registered, or otherwise appear in state or national lists and are home-based providers or, center-based programs (
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Aden Asefa, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G642, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In the
Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before February 16, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11 a.m. and 12 noon. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before February 9, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled Open Public Hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by February 12, 2018.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Orthopaedic Sensing, Measuring, and Advanced Reporting Technology (SMART) Devices.” The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss the development of Orthopaedic SMART Devices. The workshop is intended to enhance engagement with stakeholders to facilitate device development and to discuss scientific and regulatory challenges associated with Orthopaedic SMART Devices. Public input and feedback gained through this workshop may aid in the efficient development of innovative, safe, and effective Orthopaedic SMART Devices for better patient care.
The public workshop will be held on April 30, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by May 29, 2018. See the
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503 (The Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
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 May 29, 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
Andrew Baumann, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 62, Rm. 2110, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2508,
FDA is sponsoring a public workshop to discuss the engineering, clinical, regulatory, cybersecurity, and real world evidence aspects of Orthopaedic SMART Devices. The technologies of interest incorporate sensor equipped implants and instruments that generate information related to orthopaedic device performance and patient health. FDA understands that these technologies will play a role in the future of orthopaedics by providing objective data to the appropriate stakeholder that may optimize patient care. A public discussion of these topics will help the orthopaedic medical device community better understand the development of and considerations for these technologies. The workshop may help FDA and stakeholders prepare for the submittal and review of related applications.
The public workshop will consist of presentations and panel discussions. Presentations will frame the topic and provide information on specific aspects of orthopaedic SMART device technology. Following the presentations, moderated discussions will ask speakers and additional panelists to provide their individual perspectives. Four rounds of presentations and panel discussions will cover the following topics:
This session will introduce orthopaedic sensor technologies and cover the current state of research and industry adoption. Future applications of these technologies will be explored.
This session will cover the importance and potential utility of these technologies for clinicians and patients. Considerations for adopting these new technologies into existing health care paradigms will be discussed.
This session will cover current cybersecurity issues and considerations. An overview of FDA's cybersecurity considerations and guidance documents will be presented.
This session will discuss FDA's current and evolving thinking on Digital Health, clinical study considerations, including the role of real-world evidence, relevant guidance documents, and evidence generation related to Orthopaedic SMART Devices.
A detailed agenda will be posted on the following website in advance of the workshop:
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by April 20, 2018, by 4 p.m. Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7:30 a.m. We will let registrants know if registration closes before the day of the public workshop.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5231, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5661, email:
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is 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 16, 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 16, 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
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
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.
In order to conduct educational and public information programs relating to tobacco use as authorized by section 1003(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)), FDA's Center for Tobacco Products will create and use a variety of media to inform and educate the public, tobacco retailers, and health professionals about the risks of tobacco use, how to quit using tobacco products, and FDA's role in regulating tobacco.
To ensure that these health communication messages have the highest potential to be received, understood, and accepted by those for whom they are intended, the Center for Tobacco Products will conduct research and studies relating to the control and prevention of disease. In conducting such research, FDA will employ formative pretests. Formative pretests are conducted on a small scale, and their focus is on developing and assessing the likely effectiveness of communications with specific target audiences. This type of research involves: (1) Assessing audience knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and other characteristics for the purpose of determining the need for and developing health messages, communication strategies, and public information programs and (2) pretesting these health messages, strategies, and program components while they are in developmental form to assess audience comprehension, reactions, and perceptions.
Formative pretesting is a staple of best practices in communications research. Obtaining voluntary feedback from intended audiences during the development of messages and materials is crucial for the success of every communication program. The purpose of obtaining information from formative pretesting is that it allows FDA to improve materials and strategies while revisions are still affordable and possible. Formative pretesting can also avoid potentially expensive and dangerous unintended outcomes caused by audiences' interpreting messages in a way that was not intended by the drafters. By maximizing the effectiveness of messages and strategies for reaching targeted audiences, the frequency with which tobacco communication messages need to be modified should be greatly reduced.
The voluntary information collected will serve the primary purpose of providing FDA information about the perceived effectiveness of messages, advertisements, and materials in reaching and successfully communicating with their intended audiences. Quantitative testing messages and other materials with a sample of the target audience will allow FDA to refine messages, advertisements, and materials, including questionnaires or images, directed at consumers while the materials are still in the developmental stage.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The number of respondents to be included in each new survey will vary, depending on the nature of the material or message being tested and the target audience. The burden for this information collection extension is proposed to increase by 12,613 hours since the last OMB approval. The burden increase is due to an increase in the number of respondents and the categories of respondents.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing the approval of abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) 075726 for PEMOLINE Tablets, 18.75 milligrams (mg), 37.5 mg, and 75 mg, held by Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Mallinkrodt). Mallinkrodt requested withdrawal of this application and has waived its opportunity for a hearing.
Approval is withdrawn as of February 13, 2018.
Kristiana Brugger, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6262, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
FDA approved ANDA 075726 for PEMOLINE Tablets, 18.75 mg, 37.5 mg, and 75 mg, on March 30, 2001, for the conditions of use in the labeling of new drug application (NDA) 016832, the reference listed drug on which it relied. However, on October 24, 2005, FDA announced its concern that the overall liver toxicity risk of CYLERT (NDA 016832) and generic pemoline products outweighed the benefits of these products. Mallinkrodt and other holders of approved applications for PEMOLINE products ceased marketing them at that time. Indeed, Mallinkrodt stated in its May 15, 2013, request for withdrawal of approval of ANDA 075726 that it had never manufactured or distributed its product after it received approval of its application.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for VASCEPA 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 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 16, 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
• 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 VASCEPA (icosapent ethyl). VASCEPA is indicated as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride levels in adult patients with severe (≥500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for VASCEPA (U.S. Patent No. 8,188,146) from Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated August 31, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of VASCEPA 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 VASCEPA is 1,133 days. Of this time, 828 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 305 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 58 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) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
The meeting will be held on March 1, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be webcast and will be available at the following link:
Serina Hunter-Thomas or Rosanna Harvey, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-5771,
We believe that public discussion of these recommendations on individual scientists would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Serina Hunter-Thomas at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at:
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment.” This guidance was developed to assist in the development of drugs and biologics for patients with a form of bladder cancer that is not amenable to currently available medical therapy and remains an unmet medical need. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on November 18, 2016.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
V. Ellen Maher, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2352, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5017; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “BCG-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment.” This guidance was developed to assist in the development of drugs and biologics for patients with a form of bladder cancer that is not amenable to currently available medical therapy and remains an unmet medical need. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81778). Changes made to the guidance took into consideration written and verbal comments received. In addition to editorial changes made primarily for clarification, noteworthy substantive changes are as follows: Clarification of the definition of BCG-unresponsive disease and detailed
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on BCG-unresponsive nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (Center Director) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is proposing to refuse to approve a new drug application (NDA) submitted by Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Research Services, Inc. (PMRS) for oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) immediate-release (IR) oral capsules, 5 milligrams (mg), 15 mg, and 30 mg in its present form. This notice summarizes the grounds for the Center Director's proposal and offers PMRS an opportunity to request a hearing on the matter.
Submit either electronic or written requests for a hearing by March 15, 2018; submit data, information, and analyses in support of the hearing and any other comments by April 16, 2018.
You may submit hearing requests, documents in support of the hearing, and any other comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed requests and documents will not be considered. Electronic requests for a hearing must be submitted on or before March 15, 2018; electronic documents in support of the hearing and any other comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 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
Patrick Raulerson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6260, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, 301-796-3522,
PMRS submitted NDA 209155 for oxycodone HCl IR oral capsules in 5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg strengths (oxycodone HCl IR capsules) under section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2)), proposing to rely in part on the Agency's previous finding of safety and effectiveness for ROXICODONE (oxycodone HCl) IR Tablets (NDA 021011). PMRS proposed that its oxycodone HCl IR capsules be indicated for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. PMRS also attempted to show that the product had certain abuse-deterrent properties and sought FDA approval of labeling describing those properties.
On November 16, 2017, the Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) issued a complete response letter to PMRS under § 314.110(a) (21 CFR 314.110(a)) stating that NDA 209155 could not be approved in its present form, describing the specific deficiencies, and, where possible, recommending ways PMRS might remedy these deficiencies. The deficiencies include the following:
1. The application in its present form is not approvable with the proposed labeling describing abuse-deterrent properties, for multiple reasons. In particular, (1) the oxycodone in the formulation can be readily extracted in commonly available solvents into a solution suitable for injection; (2) there were insufficient data showing the presence of excipients (including dye) in the formulation can be expected to deter abuse by injection; (3) the data submitted were insufficient to show the product was meaningfully resistant to manipulation for misuse or abuse; and (4) there were not data submitted, including data from pharmacokinetic and human abuse liability studies, fully characterizing the product's abuse potential by all relevant routes of abuse. Also, the data submitted were not sufficient to rule out the possibility that the proposed formulation could result in a greater proportion of abuse by injection of PMRS's product compared to a conventional IR oxycodone formulation. Abuse by injection carries greater risk of overdose and transmission of infectious disease than abuse by other routes.
2. The safety and purity of the excipients intended (but not shown) to confer abuse deterrent properties were not adequately characterized, either by the intended oral route of use or by expected routes of abuse, including injection.
3. An overall evaluation of elemental impurities in the final formulation and a risk assessment for each heavy metal (taking into consideration the maximum daily dose) were not provided.
4. The application did not fully comply with the patent certification requirements applicable to applications submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act.
5. The complete response letter describes additional deficiencies, which generally relate to chemistry, manufacturing, and controls and current good manufacturing practice requirements, that CDER determined preclude approval of the application in its present form. The complete response letter also noted that satisfactory resolution of objectionable inspection observations was required before the application could be approved. Due to applicable limitations on public disclosure of information contained in unapproved NDAs, including trade secret information, these specific deficiencies are not described in this notice.
The complete response letter stated that PMRS is required to resubmit the application, fully addressing all deficiencies listed in the letter, or take other actions available under § 314.110 (
In response to the complete response letter, on November 17, 2017, PMRS submitted a request for an opportunity for a hearing under § 314.110(b)(3) on whether there are grounds under section 505(d) of the FD&C Act for denying approval of NDA 209155.
For the reasons stated previously and others described in the complete response letter, notice is given to PMRS and to all other interested persons that the Center Director proposes to issue an order refusing to approve NDA 209155 on the grounds that the application fails to meet the criteria for approval under section 505(d) of the FD&C Act, including that: (1) PMRS has not provided sufficient data to show that the product would be safe (505(d)(1)); (2) PMRS has not shown that the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for the manufacture, processing, or packing of the product are adequate to preserve its identity, strength, quality, and purity (505(d)(3)); and (3) the labeling PMRS proposed for the product is false or misleading (505(d)(7)).
PMRS may request a hearing before the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) on the Center Director's proposal to refuse to approve NDA 209155. If PMRS decides to seek a hearing, it must file: (1) A written notice of participation and request for a hearing (see the
As stated in § 314.200(g), a request for a hearing may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing to resolve. We note in this regard that because CDER proposes to refuse to approve NDA 209155 for multiple reasons, any hearing request from PMRS must address all of those reasons, including reasons described in the complete response letter but not described in this notice due to applicable limitations on public disclosure of information contained in unapproved NDAs, including trade secret information. Failure to request a hearing within the time provided and in the manner required by § 314.200 constitutes a waiver of the opportunity to request a hearing. If a hearing request is not properly submitted, FDA will issue a notice refusing to approve NDA 209155.
The Commissioner will grant a hearing if there exists a genuine and substantial issue of fact or if the Commissioner concludes that a hearing would otherwise be of public interest (§ 314.200(g)(6)). If a hearing is granted, it will be conducted according to the procedures provided in 21 CFR parts 10 through 16 (21 CFR 314.201).
Paper submissions under this notice of opportunity for a hearing must be filed in two copies. Except for data and information prohibited from public disclosure under 21 U.S.C. 331(j) or 18 U.S.C. 1905, submissions may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for FARYDAK 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 16, 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.”
•
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 FARYDAK (panobinostat). FARYDAK, in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, is indicated for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on progression free survival. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for FARYDAK (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,552,065; 6,833,384; and 7,067,551) from Novartis AG, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 15, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of FARYDAK 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 FARYDAK is 4,334 days. Of this time, 3,997 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 337 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 1,751 days or 5 years 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) is requesting that any industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of nonvoting industry representatives to serve on the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for a nonvoting industry representative to serve on the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for an upcoming vacancy effective with this notice.
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by March 15, 2018 (see sections I and II of this document for further details). Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by March 15, 2018.
All statements of interest from industry organizations interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting industry representative nomination should be sent to Margaret Ames (see
Margaret Ames, Division of Workforce Management, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5264, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5960, Fax: 301-847-8505, email:
The Agency is requesting nominations for a nonvoting industry representative on the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee:
The Committee shall advise FDA on: (1) Developing appropriate quality standards and regulations for mammography facilities; (2) developing appropriate standards and regulations for bodies accrediting mammography facilities under this program; (3) developing regulations with respect to sanctions; (4) developing procedures for monitoring compliance with standards; (5) establishing a mechanism to investigate consumer complaints; (6) reporting new developments concerning breast imaging that should be considered in the oversight of mammography facilities; (7) determining whether there exists a shortage of mammography facilities in rural and health professional shortage areas and determining the effects of personnel on access to the services of such facilities in these areas; (8) determining whether there will exist a sufficient number of medical physicists after October 1, 1999; and (9) determining the costs and benefits of compliance with these requirements.
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see
Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups. Specifically, in this document, nominations for a nonvoting representative of industry interests are encouraged from the mammography manufacturing industry.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Florine Purdie, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
In the
1. On page 68430, in table 1, the entry for ANDA 075726 is removed.
In a separate notice published in this issue of the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that a meeting is scheduled to be held on March 2, 2018, for the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (Advisory Council). The meeting will be open to the public via teleconference; a public comment session will be held during the meeting. Pre-registration is required for members of the public who wish to attend the meeting via teleconference and who wish to participate in the public comment session. Individuals who wish to send in their public comment via email should send an email to
The meeting is scheduled to be held on March 2, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. ET (times are tentative and subject to change). The confirmed times and agenda items for the meeting will be posted on the website for the Advisory Council at
Instructions regarding attending this meeting will be posted one week prior to the meeting at:
Jomana Musmar, Acting Designated Federal Officer, Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email:
Under Executive Order 13676, dated September 18, 2014, authority was given to the Secretary of HHS to establish the Advisory Council, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture. Activities of the Advisory Council are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.
The Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding programs and policies intended to support and evaluate the implementation of Executive Order 13676, including the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. The Advisory Council shall function solely for advisory purposes.
In carrying out its mission, the Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advance research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthen surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; prevent the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advance the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; further research on new treatments for bacterial infections; develop alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximize the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal healthcare providers; and improve international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.
The public meeting will be dedicated to the Advisory Council's deliberation and vote on a letter drafted by the Immediate Action Subcommittee. The meeting agenda will be posted on the Advisory Council website at
Instructions regarding attending this meeting will be posted one week prior to the meeting at:
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments prior to the Advisory Council meeting by emailing
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Intercellular Interactions Study Section, February 08, 2018, 08:00 a.m. to February 09, 2018, 05:00 p.m., Courtyard New Orleans French Quarter/Iberville, 910 Iberville Street, New Orleans, LA 70112 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at New Orleans Marriott, 555 Canal St., New Orleans, LA 70130. The date and time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, 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.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its Working Groups will meet to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. The meetings will be open to the public.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its Working Groups are scheduled to meet on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 and on Wednesday March 21, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., and the full Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, March 22, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Please note that these meetings may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meetings will be held at the U.S. Coast Guard's Eighth Coast Guard District, Hale Boggs Federal Building, 500 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70130 in Room B106.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the
Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1445, fax 202-372-8382 or
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, codified at Title 46, United States Code, section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant. The Committee shall also review and comment on proposed U.S. Coast Guard regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; and shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
The agenda for the March 20, 2018, meeting is as follows:
(1) The Committee will facilitate, under Task Statement 101, Provide feedback and avenues to further enhance open communication between external stakeholders and the U.S. Coast Guard's mariner credentialing program regarding all aspects of the program, the U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, section 315 requirement that the “Coast Guard Performance Technology Center—
(A) prioritizes the review of examinations required for merchant mariner credentials; and
(B) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, completes a formal review, including an appropriate analysis, of the topics and testing methodology employed by the National Maritime Center for merchant seamen licensing.”
This task is available for viewing at
(2) The Performance Technology Center has been actively collecting data from the stakeholders on issues related to the examination process. The team has been working with U.S. Coast Guard personnel; U.S. Coast Guard approved training providers, and other federal agencies and private organizations that conduct examinations. As part of the data collection process the U.S. Coast Guard will be seeking active input from all facets of maritime industry in this important initiative on March 20, 2018, as follows:
(3) At 8:00 a.m. the members of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and the attending public will meet in an informal discussion group in order to provide insight on
(4) At 10:30 a.m. the members of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and the attending public will meet in an informal discussion group in order to provide insight on shipowners' experience with the merchant mariner credentialing examination system and process to the Performance Technology Center. All other Committee members and members of the public are also welcome to participate.
(5) At 2:00 p.m. the members of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and the attending public will meet in an informal discussion group in order to provide insight on maritime training providers' experience with the merchant mariner credentialing examination system and process to the Performance Technology Center. All other Committee members and members of the public are also welcome to participate.
The U.S. Coast Guard Performance Technology Center website is
(6) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 21, 2018, meeting is as follows:
(1) The full Committee will meet briefly to discuss the Working Groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 2(a)-(h) below.
(2) Working Groups will separately address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013, International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers rulemaking;
(b) Task Statement 89, Review and update of the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC/Circ.1014 Guidelines on fatigue mitigation and management
(c) Task Statement 90, Review of International Maritime Organization's Model Courses Being Validated by the International Maritime Organization's Subcommittee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping
(d) Task Statement 96, Review and comment on the course and program approval requirements including 46 CFR 10.402, 10.403, 10.407 and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs;
(e) Task Statement 98, Continue the progress made by the military services towards meeting the goals on the use of Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and National Mariner Endorsements as identified in the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 and subsequent legislation;
(f) Task Statement 101, Provide feedback and avenues to further enhance open communication between external stakeholders and the U.S. Coast Guard's mariner credentialing program regarding all aspects of the program;
(g) Task Statement 102, Consider and make recommendations regarding the current requirement for a U.S. Merchant Mariner to read and write using English;
(h) Task Statement 103, Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(3) Public comment period.
(4) Reports of Working Groups. At the end of the day, the Working Groups will report to the full Committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full Committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any
(5) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 22, 2018, full Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction.
(2) Swearing in of newly appointed Committee members.
(3) Remarks from U.S. Coast Guard Leadership.
(4) Designated Federal Officer announcements.
(5) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
(6) Reports from the following Working Groups:
(a) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013, International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers rulemaking;
(b) Task Statement 89, Review and update of the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC/Circ. 1014 Guidelines on fatigue mitigation and management
(c) Task Statement 90, Review of International Maritime Organization's Model Courses Being Validated by the International Maritime Organization's Subcommittee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping
(d) Task Statement 96, Review and comment on the course and program approval requirements including 46 CFR 10.402, 10.403, 10.407 and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs;
(e) Task Statement 98, Continue the progress made by the military services towards meeting the goals on the use of Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and National Mariner Endorsements as identified in the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 and subsequent legislation;
(f) Task Statement 101, Provide feedback and avenues to further enhance open communication between external stakeholders and the Coast Guard's mariner credentialing program regarding all aspects of the program;
(g) Task Statement 102, Consider and make recommendations regarding the current requirement for a U.S. Merchant Mariner to read and write using English;
(h) Task Statement 103, Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(7) New Business regarding an addendum to Task Statement 101 regarding the cancellation of Medical Certificates.
(8) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on the Mariner Credentialing Program;
(b) Report on National Maritime Center activities from the National Maritime Center Commanding Officer;
(c) Briefings about other on-going U.S. Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine.
(9) Public comment period.
(10) Discussion of Working Group recommendations.
The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the Working Groups, approve/formulate recommendations and close any completed tasks. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(11) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(12) Adjournment of meeting.
A public comment period will be held during each Working Group and full Committee meeting concerning matters being discussed.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact Mr. Davis Breyer, listed in the
A public comment period will be held during each Working Group and full Committee meeting concerning matters being discussed.
Please note that the meeting may adjourn early if the work is completed.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, 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 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
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.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
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.
The
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.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
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.
The
The United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) in Section 3(b)(6) defines a Public Housing Agency, in part, as: “Except as provided in subparagraph (b), . . . any State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity or public body (or agency or instrumentality thereof) which is authorized to engage in or assist in the development or operation of public housing.” 42 U.S.C. 1437a. The section includes additional provisions related to PHAs operating Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The 1937 Act therefore includes a reference to applicable state and local laws that PHAs operate pursuant to. HUD's regulations, at 24 CFR 982.4, defines a PHA's Jurisdiction as, “the area in which the PHA has authority under State and local law to administer the program.”
HUD is proposing an information collection regarding PHAs' applicable jurisdictions, also known as service areas, in which they are authorized to operate under state and local law. Through the online tool, HUD will present PHAs with estimates of their service area boundaries, based on the locations of the PHA's public housing unit and Housing Choice Vouchers in relation to Units of General Local Government. HUD is aware that these initial estimates may not reflect the PHA's defined service area in accordance with State and local law, therefore, PHAs will be provided an opportunity to revise HUD's initial estimates using the online tool. When revising HUD's estimates, PHAs will be instructed to include in their revisions the areas in which they are authorized to operate under state and local law, not only the areas in which they currently operate. This means including areas that the PHA may have no public housing developments or HCVs, but where the PHA could operate those programs. If the PHA believes that HUD's estimate of its service area is accurate, the PHA will be asked to validate or accept HUD's estimation within the online tool.
The information collection described in this Notice will use an online electronic methodology intended to reduce administrative costs for PHAs and the federal government. The information obtained through this information collection is intended to assist in HUD program operations and in providing data to HUD's program participants, stakeholders, and the.
Collecting PHA service area boundaries in a simple electronic format will aid in the provision of data that can be used in conducting the statement of housing needs assessments as required by the PHA Annual Plan pursuant to 24 CFR 903.7. The information will be used by HUD to provide data to PHAs for use
The use of a geospatial data tool to collect this information has the advantage of simplifying and minimizing the administrative costs as well as directly linking the information to existing data resources without the need for additional cost to the federal government.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits certain activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by March 15, 2018.
•
•
Colleen Henson, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231-6131 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to promote recovery of endangered species. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
The ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, Tribes, Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Please make your comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hereby provides constructive notice that it will issue an appealable decision approving conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands to Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as amended (ANCSA).
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the time limits set out in the
You may obtain a copy of the decision from the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.
Bettie J. Shelby, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-5596 or
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the BLM will issue an appealable decision to Calista Corporation. The decision approves conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands pursuant to ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until March 15, 2018 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by facsimile will not be accepted as timely filed.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hereby provides constructive notice that it will issue an appealable decision approving conveyance of the surface estate in certain lands to Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as amended (ANCSA). Ownership of the subsurface estate will be retained by the United States.
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the time limits set out in the
You may obtain a copy of the decision from the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.
Bettie J. Shelby, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-5596 or
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the BLM will issue an appealable decision to Calista Corporation. The decision approves conveyance of the surface estate in certain lands pursuant to ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1601,
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until March 15, 2018 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by facsimile will not be accepted as timely filed.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hereby provides constructive notice that it will issue an appealable decision approving conveyance of the surface estate in certain lands to Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as amended (ANCSA). Ownership of the subsurface estate will be retained by the United States.
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the time limits set out in the
You may obtain a copy of the decision from the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.
Matthew R. Lux, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-3176 or
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the BLM will issue an appealable decision to Calista Corporation. The decision approves conveyance of the surface estate in certain lands pursuant to ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until March 15, 2018 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by facsimile will not be accepted as timely filed.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in this investigation. The investigation is terminated.
Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3438. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on December 8, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. of Menlo Park, California (“PacBio”). 81 FR 88703, 88703-04 (Dec. 8, 2016). The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain single-molecule nucleic acid sequencing systems and reagents, consumables, and software for use with same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,404,146 (“the '146 patent”) and 9,542,527 (“the '527 patent”).
On May 23, 2017, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued Order No. 10 (“
On June 8, 2017, PacBio filed a motion for summary determination that the domestic industry requirement is satisfied. On June 9, 2017, Oxford filed a motion for summary determination of (1) noninfringement as to all accused products because they do not satisfy the “single-molecule sequencing” limitations; (2) noninfringement as to a subset of the accused products (directed solely to Oxford's 1D or 1D
On July 19, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 12), granting in part Oxford's summary determination motion. Specifically, the ID incorporated the
On July 31, 2017, PacBio filed a petition for review of the
On September 5, 2017, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety and to deny PacBio's motion for leave to file a reply. Notice (Sept. 5, 2017). The Commission also requested additional briefing from the parties on certain issues.
On September 15, 2017, Oxford and OUII filed initial written submissions addressing the Commission's questions. On September 18, 2017, PacBio filed its initial written submission. On September 22, 2017, Oxford and OUII filed response briefs. On September 22, 2017, and September 29, 2017, PacBio filed its response briefs.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to adopt, on modified grounds described in the concurrently-issued opinion, the
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On February 7, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Second Amendment to Consent Decree (“Second Amendment”) with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
The United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, filed a complaint under the Clean Air Act asserting claims relating to two Midwestern heat recovery coking facilities, one of which is located in Granite City, Illinois (the “Gateway Facility”), and the other of which is located in Franklin Furnace, Ohio (the “Haverhill Facility”). The United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief against the owners and operators of the Gateway and Haverhill Facilities, the Haverhill Coke Company, LLC, SunCoke Energy, Inc., and the Gateway Energy & Coke Company, LLC. The States of Illinois and Ohio are co-plaintiffs in this action, and sought injunctive relief and civil penalties under corresponding state laws as to the Gateway Facility and Haverhill Facility, respectively.
On November 10, 2014, the Court entered a Consent Decree that,
The Consent Decree allows Defendants 720 hours of “tie-in” time to complete installation of the Redundant HRSGs. Defendants have represented that installation and operation of the Redundant HRSGs have exacerbated corrosion-related issues at the spray dryer absorbers (“SDAs”); therefore, Defendants need to replate the SDAs to upgrade their metallurgy and to make them more corrosion-resistant, as well as assist in effective operation of the SDAs. To that end, the Second Amendment would allow Defendants to use tie-in hours to address the corrosion at the SDAs, while at the same time requiring Defendants to mitigate the excess emissions associated with the replating project.
As to mitigation, the Second Amendment requires Defendants to: (1) Meet lower bypass venting emissions limits relating to sulfur dioxide at both the Gateway and Haverhill Facilities than were required by the Consent Decree, and seek to incorporate such lower limits into construction permit(s) and Title V operating permits; and (2) continue to operate the flue gas desulfurization units at the two facilities to over-control sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead, and, as to the Haverhill Facility, hydrochloric acid emissions from the main stacks by, among other things, injecting excess lime slurry into the SDAs. The proposed Second Amendment would also streamline reporting obligations under the Consent Decree, and add reporting requirements relating to mitigation of excess emissions resulting from the SDA replating project.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Second Amendment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Second Amendment may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
30 Day notice.
The Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until March 15, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jack Harne, Physical Scientist, National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (phone 202-598-9412). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
In correctional facilities, contraband items such as drugs, alcohol, cell phones, tobacco products, and makeshift weapons can be used by inmates to spread violence, engage in criminal activity, create underground economies, and perpetuate existing addictions. Contraband in correctional facilities is therefore a cause of serious concern for the safety and security of inmates and correctional staff. However, little is known about what types of contraband interdiction modalities are exercised across jurisdictions and have proven successful, let alone how much and what type of contraband is found in correctional facilities in the U.S. and how it is brought in.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
Comments should be received on or before March 15, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dawn Wolfgang at (703) 548-2279, emailing
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on February 8, 2018.
National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold seventeen meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during March, 2018. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
See
The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506, unless otherwise indicated.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.
Notice of meetings; correction.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a document in the
In the
Ms. Joyce Lee at
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.
Notice of meetings.
The goal of the FASTER CoP is to enhance collaboration and accelerate agencies' adoption of advanced IT capabilities developed by Government-sponsored IT research. FASTER, seeks to accelerate deployment of promising research technologies; share protocol information, standards, and best practices; and coordinate and disseminate technology assessment and testbed results. The agendas, minutes, and other meeting materials and information can be found on the FASTER website at:
The FASTER CoP meetings will be held over the course of the year (February 2018—December 2018) at the NITRD National Coordination Office, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 8001, Washington, DC 20024. Please note that public seating for these meetings is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. WebEx and/or Teleconference participation is available for each meeting. Please reference the FASTER CoP website for meeting dates, times, and location changes. Further information about the NITRD may be found at:
Mr. Alex Thai at
The government seeks individual input; attendees/participants may provide individual advice only. Members of the public are welcome to submit their comments to
Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on February 6, 2018.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4.
The determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses for VEGP Units 3 and 4 is effective February 13, 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:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email: Chandu
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia, (hereafter called the licensee) have submitted inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) closure notifications (ICNs) under title 10 of the
The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 3 are in Appendix C of the VEGP Unit 3 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106). The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 4 are in Appendix C of VEGP Unit 4 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A135).
The NRC staff has determined that the specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met. The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF) for each ITAAC. The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs. Each ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed. The NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things: (1) Each ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) each ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC are met; and (3) any NRC inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with that ITAAC have been closed.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of these ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If the staff receives new information that suggests the staff's determination on any of these ITAAC is incorrect, then the staff will determine whether to reopen that ITAAC (including withdrawing the staff's determination on that ITAAC). The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for these ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of these ITAAC will be reflected on the NRC's website at
This notice fulfills the staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 3 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's website at
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 4 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from January 13, 2018, to January 29, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on January 30, 2018.
Comments must be filed by March 15, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by April 16, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0021, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0021, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
A fire hazards evaluation was performed for the areas of the plant where the identified insulation materials are installed. The fire hazards evaluation demonstrates that these materials do not contribute appreciably to the spread of fire, nor represent a secondary combustible beyond those currently analyzed in the Fire Probabilistic Risk Analysis (FPRA) due to the limited applications where these materials are installed. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The identified installations of the insulation materials were evaluated against the fire scenarios supporting the FPRA. In all instances, the supporting analyses and existing fire scenarios were found to be bounding. Expanded zones of fire influence would not fail additional FPRA targets, or there were no FPRA credited targets in the area. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The limited installations of the insulation materials do not compromise post-fire safe shutdown capability as previously designed, reviewed, and considered. Essential fire protection safety functions are maintained and are capable of being performed. Because the insulation materials do not compromise post-fire safe shutdown capability as previously designed, reviewed, and considered, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The relevant accident previously evaluated is a Design Basis Tornado impacting the HNP site. The probability of a Design Basis Tornado is driven by external factors and is not affected by the proposed amendment. There are no changes required to any of the previously evaluated accidents in the UFSAR.
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of a Design Basis Tornado. [The methodology as proposed does not alter any input assumptions or results of the accident analyses. Instead, it reflects a methodology to more realistically evaluate the probability of unacceptable consequences of a Design Basis Tornado. As such, there is no significant increase in the consequence of an accident previously evaluated. A similar consideration would apply in the event additional non-conforming conditions are discovered in the future.]
Therefore, the proposed amendment, for both the conditions described herein and any future application of the methodology, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment, including any future use of the methodology, will involve no physical changes to the existing plant, so no new malfunctions could create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed amendment makes no changes to conditions external to the plant that could create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident due to new accident precursors, failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. The existing UFSAR accident analysis will continue to meet requirements for the scope and type of accidents that require analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment, for both the conditions described herein and any future application of the methodology, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not exceed or alter any controlling numerical value for a parameter established in the UFSAR or elsewhere in the HNP licensing basis related to design basis or safety limits. The change does not impact any UFSAR Chapter 6 or 15 Safety Analyses, and those analyses remain valid. The change maintains diversity and redundancy as required by regulation or credited in the UFSAR. The change does not reduce defense-in-depth as described in the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment, for both the conditions described herein and any future application of the methodology, does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's modified analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will remove the Technical Specification Table 4.3-2 Note 3 exemption for testing relays K305, K313, and K114 at power. The Technical Specification Table 4.3-2 Note 3 exemption allowed the K305, K313, and K114 to not be tested during power operation. The K305 and K313 relays are associated with the Main Steam Isolation Signal (MSIS). The K114 relays are associated with the Containment Spray Actuation Signal (CSAS). The removal of the exemption from testing during power operation means the impacted relays will be tested more frequently improving the ability to identify failed components.
The removal of the Technical Specification Table 4.3-2 Note 3 exemption for testing relays K305, K313, and K114 means these relays will be tested more frequently. This testing frequency will be consistent with the other Technical Specification Table 4.3-2 subgroup relays that do not have an exemption. The probability of an operator choosing the wrong subgroup relay during testing is no different for this change as it is for the existing Technical Specification Table 4.3-2 subgroup relays that are already tested on this same frequency. Thus, there will be no significant increase in the probability of an operator error causing an accident.
The change will also eliminate a potential single failure vulnerability associated with MSIS (relays K305 and K313) and CSAS (relay K114). The elimination of the single failure potential will lower the probability of an accident due to the spurious actuation of the MSIS or CSAS.
The change uses a parallel 2 out of 2 with second 2 out of 2 to ensure no single failure of one actuation path would prevent the other actuation path from completing its function. This ensures no additional failure mode would prevent required equipment from actuating and increasing accident consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will remove the Technical Specification Table 4.3-2 Note 3 exemption for testing relays K305, K313, and K114. The K305, K313, and K114 relays are part of the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS). The ESFAS is used for accident mitigation but an inadvertent actuation could cause an accident. The K305 and K313 relays are associated with the MSIS. The K114 relays are associated with the CSAS. The potential failures of the main steam isolation and containment spray systems have been evaluated in the Waterford 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The potential accidents are as follows:
• Loss of External Load which could be caused by closure of the Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs) (UFSAR Section 15.2, Decrease in Heat Removal by the Secondary System).
• Loss of normal Feedwater Flow which could be caused by the closure of the Main Feedwater Isolation Valves (UFSAR Section 15.2, Decrease in Heat Removal by the Secondary System).
• Asymmetric Steam Generator Transient which could be caused by the closure of one MSIV (UFSAR Section 15.9.1.1, Asymmetric Steam Generator Transient).
• Loss of component cooling to Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs) which could be caused by the closure of the RCP Component Coolant Water valve. This could lead to RCP seal assembly damage and the possibility for a loss of coolant accident (UFSAR Section 15.6, Decrease In Reactor Coolant System Inventory).
• Inadvertent containment spray which could be caused by actuation of one train of containment spray (UFSAR Section 6.2.1.1.3, Design Evaluation—Containment Pressure—Temperature Analysis).
The removal of the exemption from testing during power operation means the impacted relays will be tested more frequently thereby improving the ability to identify failed components; however, they will be tested at power. The ESFAS K305, K313, and K114 relay test logic is designed to test the relays at power and not actuate the end devices which could adversely impact the plant. Any failures that could actuate plant equipment would continue to be bounded by the existing UFSAR accidents; therefore, no new accident is being created.
The ESFAS is used for accident mitigation. The removal of the exemption from testing during power operation means the impacted relays will be tested more frequently thereby improving the ability to identify failed components. This lowers the possibility of the ESFAS equipment not being available when needed. This also means that with the ESFAS equipment available, this change does not create the possibility of a different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will remove the Technical Specification Table 4.3-2 Note 3 exemption for testing relays K305, K313, and K114. The removal of the exemption from testing during power operation means the impacted relays will be tested more frequently thereby improving the ability to identify failed components. The more frequent testing will improve the margin of safety.
The change will also eliminate a potential single failure vulnerability associated with MSIS (relays K305 and K313) and CSAS (relay K114). The elimination of the single failure potential will improve the margin of safety by reducing the potential of an accident due to the spurious actuation of the MSIS or CSAS.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs [operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel] with new requirements on RPV WIC water inventory control] that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that secondary containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS [technical specification] requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no different than if those systems were unable to perform their function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will ensure RPV water level remains above −10 inches indicator scale. Draining of RPV water inventory in the cold shutdown and refueling conditions is not an accident previously evaluated; therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory control in the cold shutdown or refueling condition is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to −10 inches indicator scale. These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The proposed changes reduce the consequences of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by requiring a Core Spray subsystem to be operable at all times in the cold shutdown and refueling conditions. The change in requirement from two Core Spray subsystems to one Core Spray subsystem in the cold shutdown or refueling conditions does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed changes reduce or eliminate some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of a Core Spray subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a draining event in the cold shutdown or refueling condition is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will maintain RPV water level above −10 inches indicator scale. The proposed changes will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed changes, some systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no different than if those systems were unable to perform their function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed changes do not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new requirements is to maintain RPV water level above −10 inches indicator scale. New requirements are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that could result in lowering the RPV water level to −10 inches indicator scale within one hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to maintain RPV water level above −10 inches indicator scale to protect the public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would not take effect until TMI-1 has permanently ceased operation and certified a permanently defueled condition. The proposed changes would revise the TMI-1 TS by deleting or modifying certain portions of the TS administrative controls described in Section 6.0 of the TS that are no longer applicable to a permanently shutdown and defueled facility. Additionally, the “Certified Fuel Handler” and “Non-Certified Operator” would be added to Section 1.0 of the TS to define these positions that are applicable to permanently shutdown and defueled facility. These changes are administrative in nature.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or design features.
The changes do not directly affect the design of SSCs necessary for safe storage of spent irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and storage of such fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP). The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of spent irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS definitions and administrative controls have no impact on facility plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) affecting the safe storage of spent irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the actual handling and storage of spent irradiated fuel. The proposed changes do not result in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and TMI-1 will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed changes do not affect systems credited in the accident analyses at TMI-1. The proposed changes will continue to require proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
The proposed changes do not result in any new mechanisms that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers in support of maintaining the plant in a permanently shutdown and defueled condition (
The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve TS administrative controls once the TMI-1 facility has been permanently shutdown and defueled. As specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for TMI-1 will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel following submittal of the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). As a result, the occurrence of certain design basis postulated accidents are no longer considered credible when the reactor is permanently defueled.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the administrative TSs that are related to the safe storage and maintenance of spent irradiated fuel. The proposed TS changes do not affect plant design, hardware, system operation, or procedures for accident mitigation systems. There is no change in the established safety margins for these systems. The requirements that are proposed to be added, revised and/or deleted from the TMI-1 TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the applicable postulated accidents; therefore, they do not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. Certain postulated design basis accidents (DBAs) involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and TMI-1 will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications (TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system and are consistent with TSTF-500, Revision 2, “DC Electrical Rewrite—Update to TSTF-360.” The proposed changes modify TS Actions relating to battery and battery charger
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the USAR will not be affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the USAR. Rather, the DC electrical power system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to restructure the TS and change surveillances for batteries and chargers to incorporate the updates included in TSTF-500, Revision 2, “DC Electrical Rewrite—Update to TSTF-360,” will maintain the same level of equipment performance required for mitigating accidents assumed in the USAR. Administrative and mechanical controls are in place to ensure the design and operation of the DC systems continues to meet the plant design basis described in the USAR. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in accordance with the plant-specific design bases as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not adversely affect operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment is ensured. The changes associated with the new battery maintenance and monitoring program will ensure that the station batteries are maintained in a highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related loads in accordance with analysis assumptions.
TS changes made in accordance with TSTF-500, Revision 2, “DC Electrical Rewrite—Update to TSTF-360,” maintain the same level of equipment performance stated in the USAR and the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform their design function. The potential change to special treatment requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs. As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition following an accident will continue to perform their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment will be installed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the safety
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements and administrative controls associated with the proposed changes to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed change does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-required SSC to perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC.
No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. The changes do not adversely affect plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. With the proposed change, each DC electrical train remains fully capable of performing its safety function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
An evaluation to determine whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment was completed by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below. However, to provide for ease of review, similar changes have been grouped into categories to facilitate the significant hazards evaluations required by 10 CFR 50.92. Generic significant hazards evaluations are provided for the More Restrictive Changes and a specific significant hazards evaluation for each Clarification or Less Restrictive change. In regards to obvious editorial or administrative changes (
This generic category include changes that impose additional requirements, decrease allowed outage times, increase the Frequency of Surveillances, impose additional Surveillances, increase the scope of Specifications to include additional plant equipment, broaden the Applicability of Specifications, or provide additional actions. These changes have been evaluated to not be detrimental to plant safety.
More restrictive changes are proposed only when such changes are consistent with the current Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (VEGP) licensing basis; the applicable VEGP safety analyses; and good engineering practice such that the availability and reliability of the affected equipment is not reduced.
Changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) requirements categorized as More Restrictive are annotated with an “MR” in Section 2 Discussion of Change (DOC). This affects TS changes L05 and L08.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) proposes to amend the VEGP TS. SNC
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes provide more stringent TS requirements. These more stringent requirements impose greater operational control and conservatism, and as a result, do not result in operations that significantly increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event, and do not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. The more restrictive requirements continue to ensure process variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes do impose different Technical Specification requirements. However, these changes are consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and licensing basis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The imposition of more restrictive requirements either has no effect on or increases a margin of plant safety. As provided in the discussion of change, each change in this category is, by definition, providing additional restrictions to enhance plant safety. The changes maintain requirements within the safety analyses and licensing basis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This category consists of technical changes which revise existing requirements such that the design and operation of a system correctly reflects how the LCO is applied and how the Action or Surveillance Requirement (SR) is carried out. This adds detail and clarity to the Technical Specifications (TS) in operating the applicable portions of the as designed and licensed plant.
Technical changes to the TS requirements categorized as “Clarification” are identified with an “CL” and an individual number in Section 2 Discussion of Change (DOC).
Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) proposes to amend the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (VEGP), Technical Specifications. SNC has evaluated each of the proposed technical changes identified as “Clarification” individually in accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change applies to a Diverse Actuation System (DAS) Manual Controls Mode 6 note for operability of the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) Stage 4 valves that involves revising the note from reactor internals in place to upper internals in place. In accordance with Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.13 ADS—Shutdown, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Open Applicability and TS 3.3.9, Engineered Safeguards Actuation System Instrumentation, Function 7, the ADS Stage 4 valves are not required to be operable in MODE 6 with the upper internals removed. However, the reactor internals would still be present. The change involves clarification of the note (with no change in required system or device function), such that the appropriate configuration in Mode 6 would be in place and would not conflict with TS 3.4.13 or TS 3.3.9. The revised note is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised note and associated requirements and actions are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing ones. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies TS requirements for the DAS manual control ADS Stage 4 valves such that they would be in agreement with the requirements set forth for the ADS in RCS Shutdown Mode 6. However, the proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)]. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the condition for the manual control of ADS Stage 4 actuation switches in Mode 6 has changed, no action is made less restrictive than currently approved for any associated actuated device inoperability. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change involves correcting an existing surveillance requirement (with no change in required system or device
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised surveillance requirement are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing one. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the surveillance requirement such that it agrees with the IRWST and PRHR HX isolation valve design. However, the proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the surveillance requirement has changed for the IRWST and PRHR HX isolation valves, no action is made less restrictive than currently approved for any associated actuated device inoperability. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This category consists of technical changes which revise existing requirements such that more restoration time is provided, fewer compensatory measures are needed, unnecessary Surveillance Requirements (SR) are deleted, or less restrictive surveillance requirements are required. This would also include unnecessary requirements which are deleted from the Technical Specifications (TS) and other technical changes that do not fit a generic category. These changes are evaluated individually.
Technical changes to the TS requirements categorized as “Less Restrictive” are identified with an “LR” and an individual number in Section 2 Discussion of Change (DOC).
Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) proposes to amend the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (VEGP), Technical Specifications. SNC has evaluated each of the proposed technical changes identified as “Less Restrictive” individually in accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The basis for the determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration is an evaluation of these changes against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The criteria and conclusions of the evaluation are presented below.
Changing Shutdown Margin (SDM) definition c. “In MODE 2 with keff<1.0 and MODES 3, 4, and 5, the worth of fully inserted Gray Rod Cluster Assemblies (GRCAs) will be included in the SDM calculation.” to “In MODE 2 with keff<1.0 and in MODES 3, 4, and 5, the worth of the verified fully inserted Gray Rod Cluster Assemblies (GRCAs) which have passed the acceptance criteria for GRCA bank worth measurements performed during startup physics testing may be included in the SDM calculation.”
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change proposed involves re-defining whether the worth of the Gray Rod Cluster Assemblies (GRCAs) should be included in MODE 2 with keff<1.0 and Modes 3, 4, and 5 when calculating the appropriate Shutdown Margin (SDM). The worth of the GRCAs for MODE 2 with keff<1.0 and Modes 3, 4, and 5 is not credited in the safety analyses as stated in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) “Westinghouse Electric Company's Final Topical Report Safety Evaluation For WCAP-16943, “Enhanced Gray Rod Cluster Assembly Rodlet Design,” Section 3.0 for ensuring adequate SDM exists.
The change involves revising the existing SDM definition (with no change in required system or device function), such that a more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, definition would be applied when calculating SDM. The revised SDM definition is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised definition requirements are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing one. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change.
This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes the requirement to include the worth of the GRCAs when calculating the SDM because they are not credited for SDM in MODE 2 with keff<1.0 and in MODES 3, 4, and 5. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the SDM calculation defined is made less restrictive by eliminating the worth of the GRCAs in MODE 2 with keff<1.0 and in MODES 3, 4, and 5, no credit is taken in the safety analyses for including their worth as discussed in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) “Westinghouse Electric Company's Final Topical Report Safety Evaluation For WCAP-16943, “Enhanced Gray Rod Cluster Assembly Rodlet Design,” Section 3.0. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
L02A. Change Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) from “All shutdown and control rods shall be OPERABLE.” to “Each rod cluster control assembly (RCCA) shall be OPERABLE.”
L02B. Change LCO AND statement from “Individual indicated rod positions shall be within 12 steps of their group step counter demand position.” to “Individual indicated rod positions of each RCCA and Gray Rod Cluster Assembly shall be within their 12 steps of their group step counter demand position.”
L02C. Delete LCO 3.1.4 note.
L02D. Change Action Condition A from “one or more rod(s) inoperable.” to where it now applies to “One or more RCCA(s) inoperable.”
L02E. Acronym defined in change to Required Action B.1 Completion Time from “1 hour with the OPDMS not monitoring parameters” to “1 hour with the On-Line Power Distribution Monitoring System not monitoring parameters.”
L02F. Add Required Action B.2.3.1 where the Required Action will be to “Perform SR 3.2.5.1” with a Completion Time of “Once per 12 hours,” OR perform B.2.3, which is renumbered as B.2.3.2.1.
L02G. Delete Required Action B.2.4 Note, and renumber the Required Action to B.2.3.2.2.
L02H. Delete Required Action B.2.5 Note, and renumber the Required Action to B.2.3.2.3.
L02I. Renumber Required Action B.2.6 to B.2.4.
L02J. Change SR 3.1.4.2 Note from “Not applicable to GRCAs” to “Not applicable to Axial Offset (AO) Control Bank RCCAs.”
L02K. Change SR 3.1.4.2 from “Verify rod freedom of movement (trippability) by moving each rod not fully inserted in the core ≥10 steps in either direction.” to “Verify rod freedom of movement (trippability) by moving each RCCA not fully inserted in the core ≥10 steps in either direction.”
L02L. Delete the Note to SR 3.1.4.3
L02M. Change SR 3.1.4.3 from “Verify rod drop time of each rod . . .” to “Verify rod drop time of each RCCA . . .”.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed changes involve revising the existing LCO 3.1.4 operability to be applicable to RCCAs with accompanying changes in actions and surveillance requirements (with no change in required system or device function), such that more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, actions would be applied. The proposed changes involve excluding the Gray Rod Cluster Assemblies (GRCAs) in the LCO 3.1.4 Rod Group Alignments LCO since their trip reactivity worth is not credited in the shutdown margin assessments in MODES 1 and 2, nor required by the design basis to be operable. Only the rod cluster control assemblies (RCCAs) are required to be operable. The maximum rod misalignment is an initial assumption in the safety analyses that directly affects core power distributions and assumption of available shutdown margin (SDM). Since the GRCAs do not have a function to maintain the reactor sub-critical unless they are fully inserted, and the reactor is shut down, operability does not apply to GRCAs like it does for RCCAs in MODES 1 and 2. The design basis function of the GRCAs when the reactor is critical does not include a provision of trip reactivity.
The revised LCO, associated actions and surveillance requirements are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised LCO requirements, associated actions, and surveillance requirements are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing ones. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change.
This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves revising the existing LCO 3.1.4 operability to be applicable to RCCAs with accompanying changes in actions and surveillance requirements (with no change in required system or device function), such that more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, actions would be applied. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the LCO 3.1.4 for Rod Group Alignment Limits is made less restrictive by eliminating the worth of the GRCAs in MODES 1 and 2 with keff ≥1, no credit is taken in the current design basis for including their trip reactivity worth. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed change to TS 3.1.6 Control Bank Insertion Limits Note 2 is to not require On Line Power Distribution System (OPDMS) during GRCA bank sequence exchange and limit the LCO applicability exception for one hour after the insertion or sequence or overlap limits are violated due to the short duration of the sequence exchange. The final mechanical shim (MSHIM) design established that the GRCA bank sequence exchange will best be accomplished by moving both banks at the same time. The entire exchange sequence will only take a few minutes from the time banks begin moving. During this short duration, OPDMS is not suited for real time monitoring relative to the time constant for the vanadium fixed incore detector system. The exchange transient may be completed before the OPDMS detects a significant change in the core radial power distribution. In addition, it is unlikely there would be significant time to take corrective action in response to an OPDMS alarm if one occurred during the exchange.
The revised LCO note exception is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised LCO note exception is no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing one. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change.
This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced.
The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the proposed change to TS 3.1.6, Note 2 would not require OPDMS be functional during GRCA bank sequence exchange for up to one hour, OPDMS operability is still required by TS 3.2.5 On-Line Power Distribution Monitoring System (OPDMS)—Monitored Parameters. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed change is to remove Required Action B.2 for monitoring and recording Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Tavg (with no change in required system or device function), such that more appropriate, albeit less restrictive, actions would be applied. There are no safety benefits, no acceptance criteria or no actions associated with any trends for recording Tavg. Monitoring Tavg provides no power distribution information for unmonitored rods that isn't already provided by complying with the existing requirements of Condition A, and average coolant temperature provides no indication of changes in shutdown margin.
The revised actions are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised LCO requirements and actions are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing ones. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change.
This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the required actions of LCO 3.1.7 for Rod Position Indication are made less restrictive by deletion of Action B.2 for monitoring Tavg, monitoring Tavg provides no power distribution information for unmonitored rods that aren't already provided by complying with the existing requirements of Condition A. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is to delete the Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.9 Channel Calibration for the passive residual heat removal (PRHR) reactor trip system actuation. The PRHR reactor trip actuation initiates a reactor trip in the event either of the parallel PRHR discharge valves is not fully closed. The proper adjustment of the valve position indication contact inputs to the breaker position are verified by performance of SR 3.3.1.10 Trip Actuating Device Operational Test (TADOT). The revised surveillance requirements are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The reactor trip from PRHR actuation has not changed, and the proper adjustment of the valve position indication contact inputs continues to be addressed by current SR 3.3.1.10. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident as a result of the revised surveillance requirements are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing ones. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change.
This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. While the surveillance requirements have been made less restrictive, the intent of the deleted surveillance requirement remains covered by an existing surveillance requirement. As such, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes define the required channels operable for manual reactor trip based upon the existing design. Required channels operable are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an accident with defined number of switches operable for manual reactor trip are no different than the consequences of the same accident using the existing required channels operable. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to define the required channels operable consistent with the plant design does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this
1. Action Condition A. from “One inverter inoperable.” to “One or two inverter(s) within one division inoperable.”
2. Second Note in Required Action A.1 from “Restore inverter to OPERABLE status.” to “Restore inverter(s) to OPERABLE status.”
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment,” as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed changes to action conditions to explicitly define an inverter division that contains two inoperable inverters is not an accident initiator nor do they impact mitigation of the consequences of any accident. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR and does not alter the method of operation or control of equipment as described in the UFSAR. The current assumptions in the safety analysis regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are unaffected by this change. Plant equipment remains capable of performing mitigative functions assumed by the accident analysis. No additional failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced and the likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the UFSAR will not be affected by this change. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase because of this change. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to action conditions to explicitly define an inverter division that contains two inoperable inverters does not involve a physical alteration of the plant as described in the UFSAR. No new equipment is being introduced, and equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, that are affected by this change. This change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No change is being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR as a result of this change. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no such effect on any assumption of the safety analyses.
Operation in accordance with the proposed TS operability ensures that the plant response to analyzed events continues to provide the margins of safety assumed by the analysis. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance, consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed. Therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the steam generators, applicable reactor trip functions, and the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger to perform the required safety function to remove core decay heat during forced and natural circulation when necessary to prevent exceeding the reactor core and the reactor coolant system design limits, and do not adversely affect the probability of inadvertent operation or failure of the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger. The proposed changes do not result in any increase in probability of an analyzed accident occurring, and maintain the initial conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the reactor core and the reactor coolant system design limits are not exceeded for events requiring emergency core decay heat removal.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the steam generators, applicable reactor trip functions, and the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger to perform the required safety function to remove core decay heat during forced and natural circulation when necessary to prevent exceeding the reactor
These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety related or nonsafety related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins through continued application of the existing requirements of the UFSAR. The proposed changes maintain the initial conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the reactor core and the reactor coolant system design limits are not exceeded for events requiring emergency core decay heat removal. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same safety functions in accordance with the same requirements as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would add a license condition that would allow use of the Tier 2 departure evaluation process for Tier 2* departures, where such departures would not have more than a minimal impact to safety. Changing the criteria by which departures from Tier 2* information are evaluated to determine if NRC approval is required does not affect the plant itself. Changing these criteria does not affect prevention and mitigation of abnormal events,
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would add a license condition that would allow use of the Tier 2 departure evaluation process for Tier 2* departures, where such departures would not have more than a minimal impact to safety. The changes do not affect the safety-related equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment which, if it failed, could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification is adversely affected by the changes. This activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures. In addition, the changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would add a license condition that would allow use of the Tier 2 departure evaluation process for Tier 2* departures, where such departures would not have more than a minimal impact to safety.
The proposed change is not a modification, addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the application of the current Tier 2 departure evaluation process to Tier 2* departures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) System is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes to address the condition of one or two motor driven AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one steam supply inoperable do not change the response of the plant to any accidents.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the AFW/EFW System provides plant protection. The AFW/EFW System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the Conditions and Required Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative and do not involve modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation.
The NSS's reactor is not operational and the level of radioactivity in the NSS has significantly decreased from the levels that existed when the 1976 Possession-only License was issued. No aspect of any of the proposed changes is an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Both of the proposed changes are administrative and do not involve physical alteration of plant equipment that was not previously allowed by Technical Specifications. These proposed changes do not change the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Both of the proposed changes are administrative in nature. No margins of safety exist that are relevant to the ship's defueled and partially dismantled reactor. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes involve revising the language of the license to clearly state previously approved changes, and to delete archaic requirements.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a footnote to TS 3.16, “Emergency Power System,” to allow a one-time extension of the AOT in TS 3.16 Action B.2 from 7 days to 21 days to facilitate the replacement of RSST-C and associated cabling.
During the temporary 21-day AOT, the station emergency buses will continue to be fed from redundant, separate, reliable offsite sources that are capable of supporting the emergency loads under worst-case conditions considering a single failure.
There are two (2) emergency buses for each unit: Buses 1H and 1J (Unit 1), and Buses 2H and 2J (Unit 2). While RSST-C is being replaced during the temporary 21-day AOT, Buses 1J and 2H will continue to be energized from a designated primary offsite source, System (Switchyard) Reserve Transformer (SRT) 4. Buses 1H and 2J will be energized from Main Step-up Transformer 2, which is the Unit 2 designated dependable alternate source.
In both configurations Transfer Bus F is fed through two, in series, transformers.
• The normal configuration feeds Transfer Bus F from the 230 kV switchyard via two (2) transformers (SRT-2 and RSST-C) and two (2) breakers. The 230 kV switchyard is connected to ten (10) offsite circuits.
• The temporary 21-day AOT configuration feeds Transfer Bus F from the 500 kV switch yard via two (2) transformers (Main Step-up Transformer 2 and Station Service Transformer 2C) and three (3) breakers. The 500 kV switchyard is connected to 3 offsite circuits.
A risk assessment has been performed for the temporary 21-day AOT configuration. The assessment concluded that the probability of a loss of offsite power for the proposed configuration is very low. Thus, the proposed change does not significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated because: (a) The emergency buses continue to be feed from redundant, separate, reliable offsite sources and (b) the effect of the proposed configuration on the probability of a loss of offsite power is very low.
There is no increase in the consequences of an accident because the emergency buses continue to be fed from redundant, separate, reliable offsite circuits and the onsite power sources (
The consequences of both a Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) and a Station Blackout (SBO) have been evaluated in the UFSAR. There is no change in the station responses to a LOOP or an SBO as a result of the extended AOT because RSST-C is not included in designated equipment used in the LOOP and SBO coping strategies.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed configuration does not result in a change in the manner in which the electrical distribution subsystems downstream of RSST-C provide plant protection. During the temporary AOT (21 days total), the only change is to substitute the reliable Unit 2 designated dependable alternate source for a primary offsite power source for Emergency Buses 1H and 2J. Other sources of offsite and onsite power are unaffected, and other aspects of the offsite and onsite power supplies are unchanged and unaffected.
There are no changes to the other RSSTs or to the supporting systems operating characteristics or conditions.
There is no change in the station responses to a LOOP or an SBO because RSST-C is not included in the designated equipment used in the LOOP and SSO coping strategies.
Therefore, the proposed change does create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change does not affect the acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety limit. The proposed TS change does not affect any structures, systems or components or their capability to perform their intended functions. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. Neither the safety analyses nor the safety analysis acceptance criteria are affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the current design basis as the design basis includes use of the Unit 2 dependable alternate source. The proposed TS change allows use of the Unit 2 dependable alternate power source as the primary source for buses 1H and 2J for a period of up to 21 days. The margin of safety is maintained by maintaining the capability to supply Emergency Buses 1H and 2J with a redundant, separate, reliable offsite power source, and maintaining the onsite power sources in their design basis configuration. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of 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 combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The proposed change would allow for the implementation of NGF including the use of Optimized ZIRLO
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 22, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated January 22, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 18, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The supplemental letter dated September 21, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 19, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 18, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 22, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated January 9, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 9, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 22, 2018.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment 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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, 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. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated January 18, 2018.
No comments have been received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 25, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a renewed license to Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia) and the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (together “licensee”) for Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-2507 for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel from North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, in the North Anna Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in Louisa County, Virginia. The renewed license authorizes operation of the North Anna ISFSI in accordance with the provisions of the renewed license and its technical specifications. The renewed license expires on June 30, 2058.
February 13, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0177 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:
•
•
•
Kristina L. Banovac, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7116, email:
Based upon the application dated May 25, 2016, as supplemented January 20, 2017, February 28, 2017, June 5, 2017, July 10, 2017, and August 16, 2017, the NRC has issued a renewed license to the licensee for the North Anna ISFSI, located in Louisa County, Virginia. The renewed license SNM-2507 authorizes and requires operation of the North Anna ISFSI in accordance with the provisions of the renewed license and its technical specifications. The renewed license will expire on June 30, 2058.
The licensee's application for a renewed license complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's rules and regulations. The NRC has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the NRC's regulations in chapter 1 of title 10 of the
The NRC staff prepared a safety evaluation report for the renewal of the ISFSI license and concluded, based on that evaluation, the ISFSI will continue to meet the regulations in 10 CFR part 72. The NRC staff also prepared an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for the renewal of this license, which were published on February 2, 2018 (83 FR 4932). The NRC staff's consideration of the impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel (as documented in NUREG-2157, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Fuel”) was included in the environmental assessment. The NRC staff concluded that renewal of this ISFSI license will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
The following table includes the ADAMS accession numbers for the documents referenced in this notice. For additional information on accessing ADAMS, see the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; revision.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.189, “Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants.” Revision 3 of RG 1.189 includes administrative changes involving editorial corrections that make the document consistent with existing policy. None of the revisions involve changes to the staff regulatory positions. This guide describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable to meet regulatory requirements for fire protection in nuclear power plants.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0024 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:
•
•
•
Daniel Frumkin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, telephone: 301-415-2280, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC “Regulatory Guide” series. Regulatory guides were developed to describe and make available to the public information methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The NRC is issuing Revision 3 of RG 1.189 directly as a final RG, because the changes between Revision 2 and Revision 3 are administrative and non-substantive. Revision 3 of RG 1.189 also updated the guide to the current program guidance for RGs. The NRC added language to Section 1, “Fire Protection Program,” to clarify the primary objectives of fire protection plans.
Since the issuance of Revision 2 of RG 1.189 in 2009, the NRC issued a Regulatory Issuance Summary to inform licensees that Inspection Manual Part 9900, Technical Guidance (TG 9900), “Operability Determinations & Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality and Safety,” was reissued as Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0326, “Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments for Conditions to Quality or Safety,” dated January 31, 2014. Revision 3 of RG 1.189 now includes a reference to IMC 0326 (see Section 1.5, “Compensatory Measures”).
Revision 3 of RG 1.189 also corrects typographic errors that previously appeared in Section 1.7.7, “Nonconforming Items,” Section 1.7.4, “Inspection,” Section 2.1.1, “Transient Fire Hazards,” Section 3.2.1, “Fire Protection Water Supply,” and Section 3.2.3, “Fire Mains.” Previously, these errors occurred during publishing of the final regulatory guide, when several paragraphs were incorrectly indented, resulting in incorrect sub-bullet numbering. These changes are intended to improve clarity and do not substantially alter the staff's regulatory guidance.
Issuance of this final RG does not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the
Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.189 is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).
Revision 3 of RG 1.189 is being issued without public comment. However, a member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs to address new issues. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a request submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) on May 16, 2017, and supplemented on September 7, 2017 and December 7, 2017, for its general license to operate an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). This exemption would permit the VYNPS to use a new regionalized loading pattern, load fuel cooled for at least 2 years, and establish a per-cell maximum average burnup limit at 65,000 megawatt days per metric ton of uranium (MWD/MTU) in HI-STORM 100 multi-purpose canister (MPC)-68M using Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1014, Amendment No. 10.
February 13, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0020 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:
•
•
•
Yen-Ju Chen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301-415-1018; email:
The VYNPS began operation in 1972. The reactor was permanently shut down on December 29, 2014. The VYNPS has stored spent boiling-water reactor (BWR) fuel assemblies at its ISFSI in thirteen (13) HI-STORM 100 casks under CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 2. The remaining spent fuel assemblies were removed from the reactor and transferred to the spent fuel pool. ENO, which owns the facility, submitted the VYNPS Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14357A110) to the NRC on December 19, 2014, and supplemented with a schedule change in a letter dated on April 12, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17104A050). In the PSDAR, as supplemented, ENO stated its intention to move all of the spent nuclear fuel assemblies into dry cask storage in late 2018, and put the plant into SAFSTOR
Consistent with subpart K of part 72 of title 10 of the
By application dated May 16, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17142A354), as supplemented on September 7, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17255A236) and December 7, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17346A685), ENO submitted a request for an exemption from those provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 that require compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 10 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16172A294), for the VYNPS to use a new regionalized loading pattern, load fuel cooled for at least 2 years, and establish a per-cell maximum average burnup limit at 65,000 MWD/MTU in Holtec HI-STORM 100 MPC-68M canister.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of 10 CFR part 72 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
The NRC staff prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML17298A135) to document the evaluation of the proposed actions (
This exemption would permit the VYNPS to use a new regionalized loading pattern, load fuel cooled for at least 2 years, and establish a per-cell maximum average burnup limit at 65,000 MWD/MTU in MPC-68M using CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 10.
Section 72.7 allows the Commission to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 72 if the exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property nor the common defense and security. Issuance of this exemption is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and not otherwise inconsistent with NRC's regulations or other applicable laws. Therefore, issuance of the exemption is authorized by law.
Approval of this exemption request will allow VYNPS to use a new regionalized loading pattern, load fuel cooled for at least 2 years, and establish a per-cell maximum average burnup limit at 65,000 MWD/MTU in MPC-68M using CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 10. As discussed in the SER and summarized in the following sections, the NRC staff has found that ENO's proposed action is acceptable and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
ENO requested this exemption to maintain its decommissioning schedule through its optimized loading campaigns. The exemption will allow VYNPS to use a more optimized regionalized loading pattern for MPC-68M, so that VYNPS could store hotter fuel from its final operating cycle, as well as store damaged fuel or fuel debris in a DFC, with cooler fuel in the same cask. The exemption will also allow VYNPS to load fuel that has been cooled for at least 2 years into the MPC-68M. In addition, the exemption will allow VYNPS to establish a per-cell maximum average burnup limit at 65,000 MWD/MTU in MPC-68M rather than using an equation to calculate the maximum burnup.
The NRC staff reviewed the requested exemption and determined that it does not change the fundamental design, components, or safety features of the storage system. The NRC staff evaluated the applicable potential safety impacts of granting the exemption to assess the potential for any danger to life or property or the common defense and security. Specifically, the NRC staff reviewed the applicant's structural, thermal, shielding, radiation protection, and material evaluations for the proposed exemption.
Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined that under the requested exemption, the storage system will continue to meet the safety requirements of 10 CFR part 72 and the offsite dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and, therefore, will not endanger life or property. The NRC staff also found that the exemption would not endanger common defense and security.
In determining whether the exemption is in the public interest, the staff considered the no-action alternative of denying the exemption request. Denial of the exemption request would require ENO to load and store spent fuel in accordance with the current conditions of Amendment No. 10 of CoC No. 1014, which uses the regionalized loading pattern shown in CoC Appendix B, Figure 2.1-4; requires fuel to be cooled for at least 3 years; and use the equation in Appendix B, Section 2.4.3, to calculate maximum allowable fuel assembly average burnup based on fuel decay heat, enrichment, and cooling time.
ENO's proposed exemption would allow VYNPS to use a new regionalized loading pattern, load fuel that has been cooled for at least 2 years in MPC-68M, and use a per-cell maximum average burnup limit at 65,000 MWD/MTU. With this exemption, VYNPS stated that it would be able to use a more optimized loading pattern for MPC-68M, so that VYNPS could store hotter fuel from its final operating cycle, as well as for storing damaged fuel or fuel debris in a DFC, with cooler fuel in the same cask.
ENO also noted that by loading higher-burned, shorter-cooled assemblies into the inner regions of the cask and low-burned, longer-cooled assemblies on the periphery of the cask, the longer-cooled assemblies on the periphery of the cask acts as shielding and blocks the radiation from the shorter-cooled fuel assemblies stored in the inner region of the cask, and thus reduces dose rates to the onsite workers and at the site boundary. This exemption request will also allow VYNPS to maintain continuous loading campaign without interruption to wait for the fuel to meet the heat loading requirement. ENO noted that this could avoid potential higher personal exposure and human errors due to loss of experienced workers.
ENO indicated that by using this exemption, VYNPS would be able to complete the transfer of irradiated fuel to the ISFSI within a shorter time period. It would permit the spent fuel pool related structures, systems, and components to be removed from service earlier, and allow for staffing reductions to a level commensurate with dry fuel storage only operations. The staff determined if the transfer of irradiated fuel to the ISFSI is completed in a shorter time, that there would be a savings to the Decommissioning Trust Fund. The staff also determined, based on Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. Master Decommissioning Trust Agreement for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Exhibit D (ADAMS Accession No. ML15111A086), that savings to the Decommission Trust Fund could financially benefit the electric consumers.
The staff has reviewed the information provided by ENO and concluded that granting the requested exemption continues to provide adequate protection of public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest.
The NRC staff also considered whether there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the exemption. For this proposed action, the NRC staff performed an environmental assessment pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30. The environmental assessment concluded that the proposed action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would not result in any changes in the types or amounts of any radiological or non-radiological effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure because of the proposed action. The Environmental Assessment and the Finding of No Significant Impact was published on January 23, 2018 (83 FR 3192).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, this exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants ENO an exemption from those provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 10 CFR 72.212(b)(3), 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5)(i), 10 CFR 72.214, and the portion of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(11) that require compliance with terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 10, for the VYNPS to use a new regionalized loading pattern, load fuel cooled for at least 2 years, and establish a per-cell maximum average burnup limit at 65,000 MWD/MTU in MPC-68M using CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 10.
The exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
March 27, 2018—The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will meet in Washington, DC to discuss performance confirmation monitoring and retrievability of emplaced high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
Pursuant to its authority under section 5051 of Public Law 100-203, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA) of 1987, the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will hold a public meeting in Washington, DC on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, to review information related to operational and performance confirmation monitoring of a geologic repository and retrievability of emplaced high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF).
The Board meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites DC Convention Center, 900 10th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001. A block of rooms has been reserved for meeting attendees at a rate of $253.00 per night. Reservations may be made by phone (1-202-739-2001, refer to NWTRB meeting). Reservations must be made by March 5, 2018, to ensure receiving the meeting rate for available rooms.
The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, and is scheduled to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. Representatives from several countries will discuss national policies and approaches to monitoring and retrievability. Technical specialists will discuss sensors and technologies for monitoring subsurface seepage, in-drift environmental conditions, and corrosion of waste packages for HLW and SNF emplaced in a geologic repository. A detailed meeting agenda will be available on the Board's website at
The meeting will be open to the public, and opportunities for public comment will be provided before the lunch break and at the end of the day. Those wanting to speak are encouraged to sign the “Public Comment Register” at the check-in table. Depending on the number of people who sign up to speak, it may be necessary to set a time limit on individual remarks. However, written comments of any length may be submitted, and all comments received in writing will be included in the record of the meeting, which will be posted on the Board's website after the meeting. The meeting will be webcast, and the link to the webcast will be available on the Board's website (
The Board was established in the NWPPA of 1987 as an independent federal agency in the Executive Branch to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of DOE activities related to the management and disposal of SNF and HLW and to provide objective expert advice to Congress and the Secretary of Energy on these issues. Board members are experts in their fields and are appointed to the Board by the President from a list of candidates submitted by the National Academy of Sciences. The Board reports its findings, conclusions, and recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Energy. All Board reports, correspondence, congressional testimony, and meeting transcripts and related materials are posted on the Board's website.
For information on the meeting agenda, contact Daniel Metlay:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of modified systems of records; notice of a rescinded system of records; notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) proposes the following changes to its system of records notices to: Amend a general routine use, rescind a duplicative system of records, establish a new system of records for collection of data from the agency website, add or amend routine uses in ten systems of records, make clarifying changes to all nineteen systems of records notices, and republish all existing systems of records notices. The PBGC determined that the proposed changes were necessary after conducting the biennial review of its systems of records notices.
Comments are due by March 15, 2018. The revised and additional systems of records described herein will become effective 30 days after the date of publication, without further notice, unless comments results in a contrary determination and a notice is published to that effect.
You may submit written comments to PBGC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
With appropriate redactions of personally identifiable information,
Margaret Drake, Chief Privacy Officer, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4400, extension 6435, or Nicole Moore, Attorney, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4000, extension 3170. For access to any of the PBGC's systems of records, contact D. Camilla Perry, Disclosure Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Disclosure Division, 1200 K Street NW, Washington DC 20005, or by calling 202-326-4040 directly.
PBGC is proposing to amend one general routine use in its Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses. During a routine review of the General Routine Uses, PBGC determined that the language contained in General Routine Use 1—Law Enforcement should be clarified to reflect that information maintained in a PBGC system of records may be disclosed to law enforcement investigating the potential or actual violation of a statute, regulation, rule or particular program. The language will be further amended to clarify that law enforcement includes tribal entities charged with law enforcement. The amended General Routine Use will read: “G1. Routine Use—Law Enforcement: A record from this system may be disclosed to law enforcement in the event the record is connected to a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute, regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto. Such disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or tribal, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if PBGC determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prospective responsibility of the receiving entity.”
Pursuant the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing improvement, integration and management efforts, PBGC is proposing to rescind the following system of records notice: PBGC-24, Participant Debt Collection (last published at 81 FR 63321 (September 14, 2016)).
With regard to PBGC-24, the Agency will continue to collect and maintain records about individuals who may owe a debt to the Agency and will rely upon an existing PBGC system of records titled PBGC-13, Debt Collection—PBGC (last published at 81 FR 63311 (September 14, 2016)), which is also written for the purpose of collecting any and all debts that be owed to the PBGC. The primary difference between the two systems of records being that PBGC-13 and PBGC-24 have different system managers.
Eliminating this notice will have no adverse impact on individuals; rather, its removal will promote the overall streamlining and management of PBGC Privacy Act system of records and reduce the likelihood of any public misunderstanding rooted in the existence of two similar notices. PBGC-13 will be clarified and amended to reflect both the existing system manager and the former system manager of PBGC-24.
PBGC is proposing to establish a new system of records titled, “PBGC-25,
The collection and maintenance of these records is new. Prior to
PBGC is proposing to add two routine uses to PBGC-2, Disbursements (last published at 81 FR 63301 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC is proposing the addition of routine use 3, which permits the disclosure of information in this system to the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management and Budget, or the Government Accountability Office. This addition will facilitate oversight of payments made from PBGC to various entities, as well as promote transparency and accountability during the payment process. Routine use 3 will read: “To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when the information is required for program evaluation purposes.”
PBGC is proposing the addition of routine use 4, which permits disclosure of information to consumer reporting agencies in order to facilitate and collect claims for money or property due to PBGC. New routine use 4 will read, “A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).”
PBGC is proposing to add a routine use to PBGC-3: Employee Payroll, Leave, and Attendance Records (last published at 81 FR 63301 (September 14, 2016)). This routine use is necessary as it allows PBGC to collect claims for money or property. The new routine use will read, “A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).”
PBGC is proposing the following revisions to PBGC-6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data (last published at 81 FR 63303 (September 14, 2016)): Clarification of the types of plan information contained in the system; amendment of two routine uses; and, addition of one new routine use.
PBGC is proposing the clarification of the name of the type of plans records contained in the system of records. Currently, plan information is described as “pension plans.” PBGC would clarify the name of the type of plans to “retirement plans” in order to reflect the inclusion of plans that do not meet the definition of “pension plans.”
PBGC is proposing the amendment of routine use 13, which currently permits disclosure to government agencies in order to verify payment eligibility. After review of the routine use and agency practices, we have determined that information needed to verify eligibility to receive payment may be held by third parties with whom PBGC has a contractual relationship. The amended portion of routine use 13 will permit disclosure and read, “a third party with whom PBGC has a contractual relationship.” This amendment will further the purpose of the Agency by ensuring payments are made only to individuals eligible to receive such payments.
PBGC is proposing the amendment of routine use 16, which currently permits the disclosure of a beneficiary's name and date of birth to the participant. PBGC wishes to disclose additional types of beneficiary information to the participant. Amended routine use 16 will read, “With the exception of third party social security numbers, all beneficiary information contained in the participant file (such as: Names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and dates of birth) provided by the subject of the record may be disclosed to the subject of the record, upon written request to the Disclosure Officer in accordance with the Record Access Procedure outlined below.” Under the existing routine use, PBGC withholds all information except the name and date of birth of a beneficiary that is contained in participant's file, even though it was often the participant who provided the beneficiary's personal information (as this information is required from the participant when naming their beneficiary). By allowing PBGC to disclose all information regarding the beneficiary to the participant, except their social security number, the amended routine use will ensure that a participant can readily confirm or amend information about their beneficiary, while still protecting the beneficiary's social security number. In addition, this routine use will improve customer service without sacrificing any individuals' privacy interests.
PBGC is proposing the addition of a routine use to PBGC-6. New routine use 18 will read, “A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).” This routine use is necessary as it allows the disclosure of information to consumer reporting agencies in order to facilitate and collect claims for money or property due to PBGC.
PBGC's review of its system of records notices revealed the need to be able to disclose certain records from the PBGC system of records documenting employee grievances to union representatives. Accordingly, PBGC is proposing to add one additional routine use to PBGC-8; Employee Relations Files (last published at 81 FR 63304 (September 14, 2016), in furtherance of resolving a grievant's complaint and limiting such disclosure to the extent that it is relevant to the subject matter involved in the union issue or proceeding and if disclosure would be in the interest of the subject individual. New routine use 3 will read: “A record from this system may be disclosed to a union representative, Hearing Examiner or Arbitrator for the purpose of representation or in order to conduct a hearing in connection with an employee's grievance or appeal.”
PBGC's review of its system of records notices revealed the need to limit the disclosure of certain information and permit the disclosure of other information from the PBGC system of records containing information on unclaimed retirement funds. PBGC is proposing to amend the name of the system, amend one routine use, correct the numbering of published routine uses and add two routine uses to PBGC-9: Unclaimed Pensions (last published at 81 FR 63306 (September 14, 2016)). These changes are designed to ensure that the system name adequately reflects the information contained therein and to ensure that the Agency may fulfill its mission of paying benefits to participants or their beneficiaries while still protecting individual privacy rights. The new name of the system of record will be PBGC-9: Unclaimed Retirement Funds.
In the last published version of this records notice, there were two routine uses number 7. PBGC is proposing to amend the first routine use 7 by removing language permitting the disclosure of the last known address of participants and beneficiaries. PBGC believes that not disclosing this information to the public protects the privacy rights of these individuals. Further, the information that will continue to be disclosed pursuant to routine use 7 is more than sufficient to make the public aware and potentially identify and locate individuals who may be owed a benefit payment.
PBGC also proposes the correction of numbering by revising the latter routine use to 8. There are no further changes to this routine use and will be republished to read:
New routine use 9 will read: “Names, social security numbers, last known addresses, dates of birth, and benefit amounts owed may be disclosed to other government agencies under a Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement in order to locate missing participants.”
New routine use 10 will read: “Names, social security numbers, dates of birth and death, name of plan sponsors, plan sponsor EIN/PN may be periodically disclosed to insurance companies where annuities have been purchased by a terminated plan.”
PBGC's review of its system of records notices revealed the need to disclose certain information from the PBGC system of records documenting personnel information to other branches and agencies of the Federal Government. PBGC is proposing to update and add ten routine uses to PBGC-12: Personnel Security Investigation Records (last published at 81 FR 63309 (September 14, 2016)), to
PBGC proposes the clarification of the name of an office within a federal agency used as an example in routine use 2. The office charged with investigating the suitability of individuals in this system would be the National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB), a component of the Office of Personnel Management. The clarified example in the routine use example will now include, “National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB).”
New routine use 4 will read: “To designated officers and employees of agencies, offices, and other establishments in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, having a need to evaluate qualifications, suitability, and loyalty to the United States Government and/or a security clearance or access determination.”
New routine use 5 will read: “To designated officers and employees of agencies, offices, and other establishments in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, when such agency, office, or establishment investigates an individual for purposes of granting a security clearance, or for the purpose of making a determination of qualifications, suitability, or loyalty to the United States Government, or access to classified information or restricted areas.”
New routine use 6 will read: “To designated officers and employees of agencies, offices, and other establishments in the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of the Federal Government, having the responsibility to grant clearances to make a determination regarding access to classified information or restricted areas, or to evaluate qualifications, suitability, or loyalty to the United States Government, in connection with performance of a service to the Federal Government under a contract or other agreement.”
New routine use 7 will read: “To U.S. intelligence agencies for use in intelligence activities.”
New routine use 8 will read: “To the appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or other public authority responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order where OPM becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.”
New routine use 9 will read: “To an agency, office, or other establishment in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the Federal Government, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the conducting of a security or suitability investigation of an individual, the classifying of jobs, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.”
New routine use 10 will read: “To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual. However, to the extent these records may reveal the identity of an individual who has provided information pertaining to the investigation, the investigative file, or the parts thereof, are exempt from release. Further, requests for OPM records contained in this system will be referred to OPM.”
New routine use 11 will read: “To disclose information to contractors, experts, consultants, or students performing or working on a contract, service, or job for the PBGC.”
New routine use 12 will read: “To disclose results of investigations or individuals records to agencies, such as the Department of Labor, providing adjudicative support services to PBGC.”
And, new routine use 13 will read: “To provide criminal history record information to the FBI, to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of FBI and PBGC records.”
PBGC is proposing to amend the system manager and add a routine use to PBGC-13: Debt Collection (last published at 81 FR 63311 (September 14, 2016)). PBGC is proposing the addition of a second system manager due to the proposed rescission of PBGC-24: Participant Debt Collection. The consolidation of the two systems streamlines PBGC processes and eliminates redundancy. Adding the system manager for PBGC-24 ensures that the public has access to the individuals responsible for the collection and maintenance of records in that system.
The section of the system of records notice entitled “System Manager(s) and Address” will be amended to included: Chief of Benefits Administration, Office of Benefits Administration, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington DC 20005.
PBGC is proposing the addition of one routine for disclosure to a consumer reporting agency. This routine use is necessary as it allows PBGC to collect claims for money or property. New routine use 5 will read, “A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).”
PBGC is proposing to add a routine use to PBGC-14: My Plan Administration Account Records (last published at 81 FR 63312 (September 14, 2016)). PBGC is proposing the addition to ensure that the Agency may fulfill its mission of locating and paying benefits to participants or their beneficiaries. New routine use 2 will read: “Names, addresses and phone numbers of plan sponsors, plan administrators, pension practitioners, actuaries and pension benefit professionals who submit plan information to My PAA may be disclosed to the public in order to ensure the public has access to contact information for those individuals submitting information regarding pension plans and those responsible for the administration of pension plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).”
PBGC is proposing to add seven additional routine uses to PBGC-17: Office of Inspector General Investigative File System (last published at 81 FR 63315 (September 14, 2016)). During the review of the systems' routine uses, it was determined that additional routine uses were necessary in order to ensure that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) continues to operate with efficiency and transparency. In addition, these new routine uses will facilitate the sharing of information between agencies in order to fulfill the mission of the OIG.
New routine use 10 will read: “A record may be disclosed where there is an indication of a violation or a potential violation of law, rule, regulation or order whether civil, criminal, administrative or regulatory in nature, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, tribal or local, or to a securities self-regulatory organization, charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation or order.”
New routine use 11 will read: “A record may be disclosed to federal, state, tribal or local authorities in order to obtain information or records relevant to an Office of Inspector General investigation or inquiry.”
New routine use 12 will read: “A record may be disclosed to a bar association, state accountancy board, or other federal, state, tribal, or local licensing or oversight authority; or professional association or self-regulatory authority to the extent that it performs similar functions (including the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) for investigations or possible disciplinary action.”
New routine use 13 will read: “A record may be disclosed to inform complainants, victims, and witnesses of the results of an investigation or inquiry.”
New routine use 14 will read: “To the Department of Justice for the purpose of obtaining advice on investigatory matters or in order to refer information for the purpose of prosecution.”
New routine use 15 will read: “To contractors, interns and experts who have been engaged to assist in an OIG investigation or in the performance of a service related to this system of records and require access to these records for the purpose of assisting the OIG in the efficient administration of its duties. All recipients of these records shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.”
New routine use 16 will read: “To the public when the matter under investigation has become public knowledge, or when the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the OIG investigative process, to demonstrate the accountability of PBGC employees, or other individuals covered by this system, or when there exists a legitimate public interest, unless the Inspector General has determined that disclosure of specific information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
And, new routine use 17 will read: “A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).”
PBGC is proposing to amend the category of records contained in the system and add an additional routine use to PBGC-19: Office of General Counsel Case Management System (last published at 81 FR 63316 (September 14, 2016)). During the review of the system of records, it was determined that additional categories of records exist in this system. PBGC proposes the amendment of the categories of records to include the following records: Draft and final versions of notes, disclosures and determinations made in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974; records and information obtained from other federal, state, local and tribal agencies and departments, including, but not limited to: Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration, Department of Treasury and Department of Justice; ethics inquiries; personnel records; financial records; and, individual tax returns.
PBGC proposes the addition of a new routine use permitting the disclosure of information to a consumer reporting agency in order to collect a claim due to the agency. New routine use 11 will read, “A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).”
PBGC is proposing to correct and update the following sections in existing system of records notices: Security Classification; System Location; Categories of Individuals Covered by the System; Categories of Records in the System; Authority for Maintenance of the System; Purpose(s); Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and the Purposes of Such Uses; Storage; Retrievability; Safeguards; Retention and Disposal; System Manager(s) and Address; Notification Procedure; Record Access Procedures; Contesting Record Procedures; Record Source Categories; and, Exemptions Claimed for the System.
PBGC is proposing these updates to PBGC-1, Congressional Correspondence (last published at 81 FR 63300 (September 14, 2016)); PBGC-2, Disbursements; PBGC-3, Employee Payroll, Leave, and Attendance Records; PBGC-6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data; PBGC-8, Employee Relations Files; PBGC-9, Unclaimed Pensions (amended to Unclaimed Retirement Funds); PBGC-10, Administrative Appeals File (last published at 81 FR 63307 (September 14, 2016)); PBGC-11, Call Detail Records (last published at 81 FR 63308 (September 14, 2016)); PBGC-12, Personnel Security Investigation Records; PBGC-13, Debt Collection (last published at 81 FR 63311 (September 14, 2016)); PBGC-14, My Plan Administration Account Records; PBGC-15, Emergency Notification Records (last published at 81 FR 63313 (September 14, 2016)); PBGC-16, Employee Online Directory (last published at 81 FR 63314 (September 14, 2016)); PBGC-17, Inspector General Investigative File System; PBGC-19, Office of General Counsel Case Management System; PBGC-21, Reasonable Accommodation Records (last published at 81 FR 63317 (September 14, 2016)); PBGC-22, Telework and Alternative Worksite Records (last published at 81 FR 63319 (September 14, 2016)); and, PBGC-23, Internal Investigations of Allegations of Harassing Conduct (last published at 81 FR 63320 (September 14, 2016)). These corrections and amendments will make the system of records notices more accurate and easier to understand individually, and collectively.
PBGC annually reviews all system of records notices. There have been minor corrections, changes in system owners due to internal agency realignments, and administrative changes for consistency in the existing system of records notices. As such, PBGC proposes to republish all existing
PBGC proposes to clarify references to law enforcement entities throughout the document to include tribal law enforcement agencies or departments.
Concerning security classification, all systems have been labeled as unclassified. Concerning the safeguarding and disposal of all systems of records, PBGC follows Federal Law and Regulations, the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) guidelines and best practices, as appropriate and current notices reflect those guidelines. Concerning the system location, the name of the agency was previously abbreviated, and the corrected location reflects a more accurate location of PBGC systems. Concerning authority for maintenance, all citations have been corrected and reflect the laws that govern the systems and collection of information for those systems. Concerning the routine uses for the systems, the numbering of the routine uses was corrected to reflect the proper numbering of all routine uses. Concerning the policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining and disposing of records, the notices reflect the current practices of the agency in keeping with the E-Government Act of 2002 and current practices of the agency in regard to these systems. Concerning storage, the notice has been clarified to reflect that PBGC records may be maintained on back-up tapes, or on the PBGC or a contractor-hosted network. Concerning retrievability, all methods of retrieval have been updated and verified. Concerning safeguards, minor grammatical corrections were made, and the entry was updated to reflect current agency policies regarding protection and security of these systems. Concerning retention and disposal, the entry was clarified to reflect that agency practices were in line with guidelines issued by the National Archives and Record Administration. Concerning notification, access and contesting or amending records, administrative changes reflect the current regulations governing the agency. Concerning record source categories, minor administrative changes were made to reflect the correct name of the offices providing records for these systems.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposal of these systems of records. A report on the proposed systems has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
For the convenience of the public, PBGC's Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses, the amended systems of records, and the new systems of records are published in full below with changes italicized.
Issued in Washington, DC.
The following routine uses are incorporated by reference into various systems of records, as set forth below.
G1. Routine Use—Law Enforcement:
G2. Routine Use—Disclosure When Requesting Information: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a federal, state,
G3. Routine Use—Disclosure of Existence of Record Information: With the approval of the Director, Human Resources Department (or his or her designee), the fact that this system of records includes information relevant to a federal agency's decision in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit may be disclosed to that federal agency.
G4. Routine Use—Disclosure in Litigation: A record from this system of records may be disclosed in a proceeding before a court or other adjudicative body in which PBGC, an employee of PBGC in his or her official capacity, an employee of PBGC in his or her individual capacity whom PBGC (or the Department of Justice (DOJ)) has agreed to represent is a party, or the United States or any other federal agency is a party and PBGC determines that it has an interest in the proceeding, and if PBGC determines that the record is relevant to the proceeding and that the use is compatible with the purpose for which PBGC collected the information.
G5. Routine Use—Disclosure to DOJ in Litigation: When PBGC, an employee of PBGC in his or her official capacity, or an employee of PBGC in his or her individual capacity whom PBGC (or DOJ) has agreed to represent is a party to a proceeding before a court or other adjudicative body, or the United States or any other federal agency is a party and PBGC determines that it has an interest in the proceeding, a record from this system of records may be disclosed to DOJ if PBGC is consulting with DOJ regarding the proceeding or has decided that DOJ will represent PBGC, or its interest, in the proceeding and PBGC determines that the record is relevant to the proceeding and that the use is compatible with the purpose for which PBGC collected the information.
G6. Routine Use—Disclosure to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): A record from this system of records may be disclosed to OMB in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
G7. Routine Use—Congressional Inquiries: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of the individual.
G8. Routine Use—Disclosure to Labor Organizations: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization recognized under 5 U.S.C. ch. 71 when necessary for the labor organization to properly perform its duties as the collective bargaining representative of PBGC employees in the bargaining unit.
G9. Routine Use—Disclosure in Response to a Breach: A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) PBGC suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) PBGC has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the agency (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal
G10. Routine Use—Contractors, Experts, and Consultants: To contractors, experts, consultants, and the agents thereof, and others performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for PBGC when necessary to accomplish an agency function. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to PBGC employees.
G11. Routine Use—Records Management: To the National Archives and Records Administration or to the General Services Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
G12. Routine Use—Gathering Information: To any source from which information is requested in the course of processing a grievance, investigation, arbitration, or other litigation, to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the purpose(s) of the request, and identify the type of information requested.
G13. Routine Use—Disclosure to a Federal Agency: To disclose information to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with hiring or retaining an employee, issuing a security clearance, conducting a security or suitability investigation of an individual, or classifying jobs, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
G14. Routine Use—Disclosure to Another Federal Agency or Federal Entity in Response to a Breach: To another federal agency or federal entity, when information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the agency (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security.
PBGC-1: Congressional Correspondence—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Communications Outreach and Legislative Affairs, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; and 5 U.S.C. 301.
This system of records is maintained to catalog and respond to correspondence received from members of Congress and their staff on behalf of their constituents, and to respond to correspondence directed to the Office of the Director of the PBGC.
Members of the United States Congress and staff, Congressional constituents and individuals who have corresponded with PBGC.
Names of members of Congress, congressional staff and constituents; addresses; phone numbers; social security numbers; customer identification numbers; email addresses; copies of correspondence received; replies to such correspondence.
Members of Congress and their staff; correspondents; agency employees preparing responses to incoming correspondence or who generate original correspondence in their official capacities.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G11, G13 and G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Name.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the
None.
PBGC-1, Congressional Correspondence (last published at 81 FR 63300 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-2: Disbursements—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, PBGC Field Offices (Field Benefit Administration), and/or paying agent worksites. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Financial Operations Department, PBGC, K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 6101; 31 U.S.C. 9101,
This system of records is maintained for use in determining amounts to be paid and in effecting payments by the Department of the Treasury on behalf of PBGC.
PBGC Employees; consultants; contractors; vendors; and any other individuals who receive payments from PBGC.
Acquisition data for the procurement of goods and services; invoices; payment vouchers; financial information of commercial vendors and government contractors; Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) information; IP information; cookies (session and persistent); name; address; taxpayer identification number; financial information; bank information; Social Security number; and other information related to the disbursement of funds.
Subject individuals and PBGC.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) and:
1. General Routine Uses Gl through G7 and G9 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system of records may be transmitted to the United States Department of the Treasury and/or financial institutions, including entities contracted by PBGC, to effect payments to consultants and vendors, to verify consultants' and vendors' eligibility to receive payments, or to fulfill PBGC's requirement pursuant to the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014.
3. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when the information is required for program evaluation purposes.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: Name, social security number, and tax payer identification number.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
Records existing on paper are destroyed beyond recognition. Transactional records may be temporary in nature and deleted once payment has been accepted, any action has been completed, superseded, obsolete, or no longer needed. The retention of other records may be discontinued at the completion of the contract, a requisition requiring payment, or upon receipt of the payment itself.
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-2, Disbursements (last published at 81 FR 63301 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-3: Employee Payroll, Leave, and Attendance Records—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Financial Operations Division, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Director, Human Resources Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 5501-5584.
This system of records is maintained to perform agency functions involving employee, student, and intern leave, attendance, and payments, including determinations relating to the amounts to be paid to employees, the distribution of pay according to employee, student, and intern directions (for allotments to financial institutions, and for other authorized purposes), tax withholdings and other authorized deductions, and for statistical purposes.
Current and former PBGC employees, students and interns.
Personnel information, such as: Names, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, employee numbers, dates of birth, notifications of personnel actions; payroll information, such as: Allotments and requests, marital status and number of dependents, beneficiary data, child support enforcement order information (which may include the social security numbers of custodian and minor children), debts owed to PBGC, debts owed to the federal government, garnishments, personal bank account information, direct deposit information, union dues, tax information, other deductions, time and attendance records; emergency contact information; co-owner and/or beneficiary of bonds; Thrift Savings Plan information; Flexible Spending Account information; Long Term Care Insurance; awards; retirement information; salary data including pay rate, grade, length of service; health information.
Subject individuals; subject individuals' supervisors; timekeepers; Department of the Interior, Interior Business Center; and, the Office of Personnel Management.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system may be disclosed to the United States Department of the Interior, the United States Department of Labor, Social Security Administration, and the United States Department of the Treasury in order to effect payments to current or former PBGC employees, students, and interns.
3. Information regarding current payments due or delinquent repayments owed to PBGC through current and former employees, students, and interns may be shared with the Department of the Treasury for the purposes of offset.
4. Information from this system of records may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to that agency's responsibility for the evaluation and oversight of federal personnel management.
5. A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: Name; employee number; or social security number.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer,
None.
PBGC-3, Employee Payroll, Leave, and Attendance Records (last published at 81 FR 63301 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-6: Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, and/or PBGC Field Offices (Field Benefit Administration), plan administrator worksites, and paying agent worksites. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Chief of Benefits Administration, Office of Benefits Administration, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1321, 1341, 1342, and 1350; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301.
This system of records is maintained for use in determining whether participants, alternate payees, beneficiaries, spouses and domestic partners are eligible for benefits under plans covered by ERISA, determining supplemental payments to be paid to those persons by a party other than PBGC, determining the amounts of benefits to be paid, making benefit payments, collecting benefit overpayments, and complying with statutory and regulatory mandates.
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers are used to survey customers to measure their satisfaction with PBGC's benefit payment services and to track (for follow-up) those who do not respond to surveys.
Information from this system may be used for research into, and statistical information about, benefit determinations for actuaries and publications.
Participants, alternate payees, beneficiaries, spouses and domestic partners in terminated and non-terminated retirement plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and other individuals who contact PBGC regarding benefits they may be owed from PBGC.
Names; addresses; telephone numbers; email addresses; gender; social security numbers and other Social Security Administration information; dates of birth and death; dates of hire, termination, and retirement; salary; employment history; marital status; domestic relations orders; time of plan participation; eligibility status; pay status; benefit data, including records of benefit payments made to participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries in terminating and terminated retirement plans; powers of attorney; insurance information where plan benefits are provided by private insurers; medical records; disability information; retirement plan names and numbers; correspondence; initial and final PBGC determinations (see, 29 CFR 4003.21 and 4003.59); and, other records relating to debts owed to PBGC.
Plan administrators; participants, spouses, alternate payees, beneficiaries, and other individuals who contact PBGC regarding benefits they may be owed from PBGC; agents listed on power of attorneys; agents listed on release forms, PBGC field office; the SSA; the FAA; and the IRS.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1, G2, G4 through G7, G9 through and G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to third parties, such as banks, insurance companies, or trustees:
a. To enable these third parties to make or determine benefit payments, or
b. To report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the amounts of benefits paid (or required to be paid) and taxes withheld.
3. A record from this system may be disclosed, in furtherance of proceedings under Title IV of ERISA, to a contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor or successor, and any member of the same control group.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed, upon request, for a purpose authorized under ERISA, to an official of a labor organization recognized as the current or former collective bargaining representative of the individual about whom a request is made.
5. Payees' names, addresses, telephone numbers, and information related to how PBGC determined that a debt was owed by such payees to PBGC may be disclosed to the Department of the Treasury or a debt collection agency or to collect a claim. Disclosure to a debt collection agency shall be made only under a contract issued by the federal government that binds any such contractor or employee of such contractor to the penalties of the Privacy Act. The information so disclosed shall be used exclusively pursuant to the terms and conditions of such contract and shall be used solely for the purposes prescribed therein. The contract shall provide that the information so disclosed shall be returned at the conclusion of the debt collection effort.
6. The name and social security number of a participant employed or formerly employed as a pilot by a commercial airline may be disclosed to the Federal Aviation Administration to obtain information relevant to the participant's eligibility or continued eligibility for disability benefits.
7. The name of a participant's plan, the actual or estimated amount of a participant's benefit under ERISA, the form(s) in which the benefit is payable, and whether the participant is currently receiving benefit payments under the plan or (if not) the earliest date(s) such payments could commence may be disclosed to the participant's spouse, domestic partner, former spouse, former domestic partner, child, or other dependent solely to obtain a qualified domestic relations order under 29 U.S.C. 1056(d) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p). PBGC will disclose the information only upon the receipt of a written request by a prospective alternate payee, or the alternate payee's representative, that describes the requester's relationship to the participant and states that the information will be used solely to obtain a qualified domestic relations order under state domestic relations law. PBGC will notify the participant of any information disclosed to a prospective alternate payee or their representative under this routine use.
8. Information from an initial benefit determination under 29 CFR 4003 (excluding the participant's address, telephone number, social security number, and any sensitive medical information) may be disclosed to an alternate payee, or their representative, under a qualified domestic relations order issued pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1056(d) and 26 U.S.C. 414,
9. Information from an alternate payee's initial benefit determination under 29 CFR 4003.1 (excluding the alternate payee's address, telephone number, social security number, and any sensitive medical information) may be disclosed to a participant, or their representative, under a qualified domestic relations order issued pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1056(d) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p) to explain how PBGC determined the benefit due to the alternate payee so that the participant may pursue an administrative appeal of the benefit determination under 29 CFR 4003,
10. Information used in calculating the benefit, or share of the benefit, of a participant or alternate payee (excluding the participant's or alternate payee's address, telephone number, social security number, and any sensitive medical information) may be disclosed to a participant or an alternate payee, or their representative, when (a) a qualified domestic relations order issued pursuant to 29 U.S.C. and 26 U.S.C. affects the calculation of the benefit, or share of the benefit, of the participant or alternate payee; and (b) the information is needed to explain to the participant or alternate payee how PBGC calculated the benefit, or share of the benefit, of the participant or alternate payee. PBGC shall notify the participant or the alternate payee, or their representative, as appropriate, of the information disclosed to the participant or the alternate payee, or their representative, under this routine use.
11. The names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, and the pension plan name and number of eligible PBGC pension recipients may be disclosed to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Labor to implement the income tax credit for health insurance costs under 26 U.S.C. 35 and the program for advance payment of the tax credit under 26 U.S.C. 7527.
12. Names, addresses, social security numbers, and dates of birth of eligible PBGC pension recipients residing in a particular state may be disclosed to the state's workforce agency if the agency received a National Dislocated Worker Grant from the Department of Labor under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 to provide assistance and support services for state residents under 29 U.S.C. ch. 32.
13. Payees' names, social security numbers, and dates of birth may be provided to the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or a third party with whom PBGC has a contractual relationship, to verify payees' eligibility to receive payments.
14. Names and social security numbers of participants and beneficiaries may be provided to the Department of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury's financial agent, and the Federal Reserve Bank for the purpose of learning which of PBGC's check payees have electronic debit card accounts used for the electronic deposit of federal benefit payments, for establishing electronic debit card accounts for eligible participants and beneficiaries, and for administering payments to participants and beneficiaries who have selected this method of payment.
15. Information relating to revocation of a power of attorney may be disclosed to the former agent that was named in the revoked power of attorney.
16. With the exception of third party social security numbers, all beneficiary information contained in the participant file (such as: Names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and dates of birth) provided by the subject of the record may be disclosed to the subject of the record, upon written request to the Disclosure Officer in accordance with the Record Access Procedure outlined below.
17. Names, social security numbers, last known addresses, dates of birth and death, amount of benefit, plan name, plan EIN/PIN number, name of plan sponsor, and the city and state of the plan sponsor of plan participants and beneficiaries may be disclosed to third parties, with whom PBGC has a contractual relationship, that provide locator services (including credit reporting agencies and debt collection firms or agencies) to locate participants and beneficiaries. Such information will be disclosed only if PBGC has no address for an individual, if mail sent to the individual at the last known address is returned as undeliverable, or if PBGC has been otherwise unsuccessful at contacting the individual. Disclosure shall be made only under a contract that subjects the firm or agency providing the service and its employees to the criminal penalties of the Privacy Act. The information so disclosed shall be used exclusively pursuant to the terms and conditions of such contract and shall be used solely for the purposes prescribed therein. The contract shall provide that the information so disclosed shall be returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the locating effort.
18. Names, social security numbers, last known addresses, dates of birth and death, employment history, and pay status of individuals covered by legal settlement agreements involving PBGC may be disclosed to entities covered by or created under those agreements.
19. A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: Name; social security number; customer identification number; address; date of birth; or, date of death.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical,
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Paper and electronic records that contain federal tax information are stored under procedures that meet IRS safeguarding standards, as reflected in IRS Publication 1075. Other records that do not contain federal tax information are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4 or to amend records pertaining to themselves in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.5, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data (last published at 81 FR 63303 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-8: Employee Relations Files—PBGC
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Human Resources Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 7101; 42 U.S.C. 2000e
The purpose of this system is to catalog, investigate, and appropriately and timely respond to administrative and union grievances and appeals filed by PBGC employees or the Union on behalf of an employee pursuant to PBGC's Administrative Grievance Procedure and the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Current and former PBGC employees who have initiated grievances under an administrative grievance procedure or under an applicable collective bargaining agreement.
Administrative and union grievances submitted by PBGC employees or the Union; agency responses to employees and Union grievances; employees' appeals of responses to grievances; agency responses to such appeals and related correspondence; investigative notes; records of proceedings; appeal decisions; last chance, last rights, and settlement agreements, and related information.
Subject individuals; subject individuals' supervisors, managers, representatives or colleagues; PBGC Office of the General Counsel; PBGC Human Resources Department staff; Department of Labor; Office of Personnel Management; United States Office of Special Counsel; Federal Labor Relations Authority; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the Merit Systems Protection Board; and, other individuals with relevant information.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G11, G13, and G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Office of Special Counsel, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to carry out their authorized functions (under 5 U.S.C. 1103, 1204, 7105, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-4, in that order).
3. A record from this system may be disclosed to a union representative, Hearing Examiner or Arbitrator for the purpose of representation or in order to conduct a hearing in connection with an employee's grievance or appeal.
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by employee name or social security number.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, following the requirements of Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), records in this system are exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and of 5 U.S.C. 552a, provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he or she would otherwise be entitled to by federal law, or for which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of these records, such material shall be provided to the individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of the material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government with an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.
PBGC-8, Employee Relations Files (last published at 81 FR 63305 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-9: Unclaimed Pensions—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 and/or PBGC Field Offices (Field Benefit Administration), and paying agent worksites. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director—Participant Services Department, Office of Benefits Administration, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1321, 1322, 1322a, 1341, 1342, and 1350; 29 U.S.C. 1203; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301.
This system of records is maintained to locate participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries of defined benefit and defined contribution plan funds who may be owed benefits as the result of a terminated plan or defined contribution plan whose funds are held under the control or authority of the PBGC, and to provide information on insurance companies to individuals who may have had annuities purchased for them by a terminated plan.
Participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries in defined benefit plans, and defined contribution plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Names; dates of birth and death; social security numbers; addresses; email addresses; telephone numbers; names of plan sponsor; names of defined benefit and defined contribution plans; plan numbers for defined benefit and defined contribution plans; employment history; pay status; amount of benefit owed; last known address of the plan sponsor and plan sponsor EIN/PN.
PBGC-6; the SSA; the IRS; labor organization officials; firms or agencies providing locator services; USPS licensees; and, PBGC Field Offices (Field Benefit Administration) and any other individual that provides PBGC with information regarding a missing participant, beneficiary, or alternate payee.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1, G4 through G7, G9 through G11, G13 and G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. Names and social security numbers of plan participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees may be disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain current addresses from tax return information and to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to obtain current addresses. Such information will be disclosed only if PBGC has no address for an individual or if mail sent to the individual at the last known address is returned as undeliverable.
3. Names and last known addresses may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization recognized as the collective bargaining representative of participants for posting in union halls or for other means of publication to obtain current addresses of participants and beneficiaries. Such information will be disclosed only if PBGC has no address for an individual or if mail sent to the individual at the last known address is returned as undeliverable.
4. Names, social security numbers, last known addresses, dates of birth and death, amount of benefit, retirement plan name, plan EIN/PN number, name of plan sponsor, and the city and state of the plan sponsor may be disclosed to private firms and agencies that provide locator services, including credit reporting agencies and debt collection firms or agencies, to locate participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees. Such information will be disclosed only if PBGC has no address for an individual, if mail sent to the individual at the last known address is returned as undeliverable or if PBGC has been otherwise unsuccessful at contacting the individual. Disclosure shall be made only under a contract that subjects the firm or agency providing the service and its employees and contractors to the criminal penalties of the Privacy Act. The information so disclosed shall be used exclusively pursuant to the terms and conditions of such contract and
5. Names and addresses may be disclosed to licensees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) to obtain current addresses under the USPS's National Change of Address Linkage System (NCOA). Disclosure shall be made only under a contract that binds the licensee of the Postal Service and its employees to the criminal penalties of the Privacy Act. The contract shall provide that the records disclosed by PBGC shall be used exclusively for updating addresses under NCOA and must be returned to PBGC or destroyed when the process is completed. The records will be exchanged electronically in an encrypted format.
6. Names and last known addresses may be disclosed to other participants in, and beneficiaries under, a retirement plan to obtain the current addresses of individuals. Such information will be disclosed only if PBGC has no address for an individual or if mail sent to the individual at the last known address is returned as undeliverable.
7. Names of participants and beneficiaries, names and addresses of participants' former employers, and the plan name may be disclosed to the public to obtain the current addresses for participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees. Such information will be disclosed to the public when PBGC is unable to make benefit payments to those participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees because the address on file is unable to be confirmed as current or correct.
8. Names, social security numbers, last known addresses, dates of birth and death, employment history, and pay status of individuals covered by legal settlement agreements involving PBGC may be disclosed to entities covered by or created under those agreements.
9. Names, social security numbers, last known addresses, dates of birth, and benefit amounts owed may be disclosed to other government agencies under a Memorandum of Understanding or an Interagency Agreement in order to locate missing participants.
10. Names, social security numbers, dates of birth and death, name of plan sponsors, plan sponsor EIN/PN may be periodically disclosed to insurance companies where annuities have been purchased by a terminated plan.
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by employee name, social security number and/or date of birth.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-9, Unclaimed Pensions (amended to Unclaimed Retirement Funds) (last published at 81 FR 63306 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-10: Administrative Appeals Files—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Manager of the Appeals Division, Office of the General Counsel, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. ch. 18; 29 CFR 4003.1; 29 CFR 4003.
The purpose of this system is to catalog, review, and respond to administrative appeals by plan participants, beneficiaries and employers of PBGC determinations (such as plan, benefit, qualified domestic relations order, payment, and liability determinations).
Individuals who file administrative appeals with PBGC' s Appeals Board.
Personal information (such as names, addresses, social security numbers, gender, dates of birth, dates of hire and termination, salary, marital status,
Subject individuals; participants, beneficiaries, or alternate payees; plan administrators, plan actuaries, paying agents, purchased annuity providers, contributing sponsors (or other employer who maintained the plan, which may include any predecessor, successor, or member of the same control group); the labor organization recognized as the collective bargaining representative of a participant; SSA; and, any third party affected by the decision.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 and G4 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system may be disclosed to third parties who may be aggrieved by the decision of the Appeals Board under 29 CFR 4003.57.
3. A record from this system may be disclosed, upon request, to an attorney representative or a non-attorney representative who has a power of attorney for the subject individuals, under 29 CFR 4003.6.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed to third parties, such as banks, insurance companies, and trustees, to effectuate benefit payments to plan participants, beneficiaries, and/or alternate payees.
5. A record from this system may be disclosed to third parties, such as contractors and expert witnesses, to obtain expert analysis of an issue necessary to resolve an appeal.
6. A record from this system, specifically, the name and social security number of a participant, may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization recognized as the collective bargaining representative of the participant to obtain information relevant to the resolution of an appeal.
7. A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: participant, beneficiary, and/or alternate payee's name, social security number, or PBGC customer identification number; plan name; appeal number; or extension request number.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-10, Administrative Appeals File (last published at 81 FR 63307 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-11: Call Detail Records—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301.
This system of records is used for Office of the Inspector General investigations and other special investigation requests.
PBGC employees, contractors, students and interns.
Records relating to the use of PBGC telephones and PBGC-issued portable electronic devices to place calls outside of PBGC and receive calls from outside of PBGC, and records indicating the assignment of telephone extension numbers and PBGC-issued portable electronic devices to PBGC employees.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1, G3, G4, G5, and G7 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: name of employee or contractor; telephone extension number; PBGC-issued portable electronic device number; or telephone number called.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Telephone and PBGC-issued portable electronic device assignment records.
None.
PBGC-11, Call Detail Records (last published at 81 FR 63308 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-12: Personnel Security Investigation Records—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Human Resources Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 5 U.S.C. 3301; 44 U.S.C. 3101; Executive Order 10450; Executive Order 10577; Executive Order 12968; Executive Order 13467; Executive Order 13488; 5 CFR 5.2; 5 CFR 731, 732 and 736; 5 CFR 1400; OMB Circular No. A-130 Revised, Appendix III, 61 FR 6428; Federal Information Processing Standard 201; Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12.
The records in this system of records are used to document and support decisions as to the suitability, eligibility, and fitness for service of applicants for federal employment and contract positions, and may include students, interns, or vendors to the extent their duties require access to federal facilities, information, information systems, or applications.
The records may also be used to help streamline and make the background suitability investigations and adjudications processes more efficient.
The records additionally may be used to document security violations and supervisory actions taken in response to such violations.
Current and former applicants, employees, students, interns, government contractors, experts, instructors, vendors, and consultants to federal programs who undergo a personnel background investigation to determining suitability for employment, contractor employee fitness, credentialing for Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, and/or access to PBGG facilities or information technology system. Individuals who have corresponded with PBGC regarding personnel security investigations. This system also includes individuals accused of or found in violation of PBGC's security rules and regulations.
Name; former names; date and place of birth; home address; email address; phone numbers; employment history; residential history; education and
Records pertaining to security violations may contain information pertaining to circumstances of the violation; witness statements; investigator's notes; and documentation of agency action taken in response to security violations.
Applications and other personnel and security forms, including, but not limited to, SF-85, SF-85P, SF-86, SF-87; information from personal interviews with the applicant and various individuals, such as former employers, references, neighbors, and other associates who may have information about the subject of the investigation; investigative records and notices of personnel actions furnished by other federal agencies; public records such as court filings; publications such as newspapers, magazines, and periodicals; tax records; educational institutions; police departments; credit bureaus; probation officials; prison officials; and, medical professionals.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record, from which information is requested during an investigation from this system, may be disclosed to an authorized source (
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to carry out its respective authorized functions (under 5 U.S.C. 1204, and 7105, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-4).
4. To designated officers and employees of agencies, offices, and other establishments in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, having a need to evaluate qualifications, suitability, and loyalty to the United States Government and/or a security clearance or access determination.
5. To designated officers and employees of agencies, offices, and other establishments in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, when such agency, office, or establishment investigates an individual for purposes of granting a security clearance, or for the purpose of making a determination of qualifications, suitability, or loyalty to the United States Government, or access to classified information or restricted areas.
6. To designated officers and employees of agencies, offices, and other establishments in the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of the Federal Government, having the responsibility to grant clearances to make a determination regarding access to classified information or restricted areas, or to evaluate qualifications, suitability, or loyalty to the United States Government, in connection with performance of a service to the Federal Government under a contract or other agreement.
7. To U.S. intelligence agencies for use in intelligence activities.
8. To the appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, or other public authority responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order where OPM becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
9. To an agency, office, or other establishment in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the Federal Government, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the conducting of a security or suitability investigation of an individual, the classifying of jobs, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
10. To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual. However, to the extent these records may reveal the identity of an individual who has provided information pertaining to the investigation, the investigative file, or the parts thereof, are exempt from release. Further, requests for OPM records contained in this system will be referred to OPM.
11. To disclose information to contractors, experts, consultants, or students performing or working on a contract, service, or job for the PBGC.
12. To disclose results of investigations or individuals records to agencies, such as the Department of Labor, providing adjudicative support services to PBGC.
13. To provide criminal history record information to the FBI, to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of FBI and PBGC records.
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: name; social security number; unique case serial number; or other unique identifier.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), records in this system are exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), (H), (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he or she would otherwise be entitled to by federal law, or for which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of these records, such material shall be provided to the individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of the material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government with an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.
PBGC-12, Personnel Security Investigation Records (last published at 81 FR 63309 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-13: Debt Collection—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 and/or PBGC Field Offices (Field Benefit Administration), plan administrator, and paying agents worksites. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Financial Operations Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Chief of Benefits Administration, Office of Benefits Administration, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a); 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; Executive Order 13019.
This system of records is maintained for the purpose of collecting debts owed to PBGC by various individuals, including, but not limited to, pension plans and/or sponsors owing insurance premiums, interest and penalties; PBGC employees and former employees; consultants and vendors; participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries in retirement plans coming under the control or authority of the PBGC; and individuals who received payments from PBGC to which they are not entitled. This system facilitates PBGC's compliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Any individual who may owe a debt to PBGC, including but not limited to: pension plans and/or sponsors owing insurance premiums, interest, and penalties; employees and former employees of PBGC; individuals who are consultants and vendors to PBGC; participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries in terminating and terminated defined benefit or defined contribution plans coming under the control or authority of the PBGC; and any individual who received payments to which they are not entitled.
Plan filings; names; addresses; social security numbers; taxpayer identification numbers; employee numbers; pay records; travel vouchers and related documents filed by PBGC employees; invoices filed by consultants and vendors to PBGC; records of benefit payments made to participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries in plans covered by ERISA; and other relevant records relating to a debt including financial information, bank account numbers, the amount, status, and history of the debt, and the program under which the debt arose.
Subject individuals; plan administrators; labor organization officials; debt collection agencies or firms; firms or agencies providing locator services; PBGC Field Offices (Field Benefit Administration); and, other federal agencies.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the United States Department of the Treasury for cross-servicing to effect debt collection in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
3. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of employees, participants, beneficiaries, alternate payees and any other individual owing a debt to PBGC, and information pertaining to debts owed by such individuals to PBGC may be disclosed to a debt collection agency to collect a claim. Disclosure to a debt
4. These records may be used to disclose information to any federal agency, state or local agency, tribal governments, U.S. territory or commonwealth, or the District of Columbia, or their agents or contractors, including private collection agencies (consumer and commercial):
a. To facilitate the collection of debts through the use of any combination of various debt collection methods required or authorized by law, including, but not limited to:
i. Request for repayment by telephone or in writing;
ii. Negotiation of voluntary repayment or compromise agreements;
iii. Offset of federal payments, which may include the disclosure of information contained in the records for the purpose of providing the debtor with appropriate pre-offset notice and to otherwise comply with offset prerequisites, to facilitate voluntary repayment in lieu of offset, and to otherwise effectuate the offset process;
iv. Referral of debts to private collection agencies, to Treasury designated debt collection centers, or for litigation;
v. Administrative and court-ordered wage garnishment;
vi. Debt sales;
vii. Publication of names and identities of delinquent debtors in the media or other appropriate news or websites; and
viii. Any other debt collection method authorized by law;
b. To collect a debt owed to the United States through the offset of payments made by states, territories, commonwealths, tribal governments, or the District of Columbia;
c. To account or report on the status of debts for which such entity has a financial or other legitimate need for the information in the performance of official duties; or,
d. For any other appropriate debt collection purpose.
5. A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: employer identification number; social security number; customer identification number; plan number; recovery tracking number; name of debtor, plan, plan sponsor, plan administrator, participant, alternate payee, or beneficiary.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None
PBGC-13, Debt Collection (last published at 81 FR 63311 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-14: My Plan Administration Account Records—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Financial Operations Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1306, and 1343; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301;44 U.S.C. 3601,
This system of records is maintained for use in verifying the identity of individuals who register to use the My PAA application to make PBGC filings, and receiving, authenticating, processing, and keeping a history of filings and premium payments submitted to PBGC by registered users. Information from this system is used to provide the public with contact information for plan sponsors, plan
Individuals who use the My Plan Administration Account (My PAA) application to make PBGC filings and payments electronically via PBGC's website (
User name; work telephone number; work email address; other contact information; a temporary PBGC-issued user ID and password; a user-selected user ID and password; a secret question/secret answer combination for authentication; IP addresses; cookies (session and persistent); financial information; taxpayer identification number; bank information; for each pension plan for which the user intends to participate in making filings with PBGC: the plan name; employer identification number; plan number; the plan administrator's name, address, phone number, email address, and other contact information; and the role that the user will play in the filing process,
Registered users.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1, G4 through G7, G9, G10, and G12 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. Names, addresses and phone numbers of plan sponsors, plan administrators, pension practitioners, actuaries and pension benefit professionals who submit plan information to My PAA may be disclosed to the public in order to ensure the public has access to contact information for those individuals submitting information regarding pension plans and those responsible for the administration of pension plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: Name; user ID; email address; telephone number; plan name; EIN; or plan number.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None
PBGC-14, My Plan Administration Account Records (last published at 81 FR 63312 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-15: Emergency Notification Records—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Director, Workplace Solutions Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; Executive Order 12656.
This system of records is maintained for notifying PBGC employees, students, interns, and contractors of PBGC's operating status in the event of an emergency, natural disaster or other event affecting PBGC operations; and for contacting employees, students, interns, and contractors who are out of the office on leave or after regular duty hours to obtain information necessary for official business.
PBGC employees, students, interns, and individuals who work for PBGC as
Name; title; organizational component; employer; PBGC and personal telephone numbers; PBGC and personal email addresses; other contact information; user ID; a temporary PBGC-issued password; and a user-selected password.
Subject individuals.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1, G4, G5, G7, G9 through G11, G13, and G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to family members, emergency medical personnel, or to law enforcement officials in case of a medical or other emergency involving the subject individual (without the subsequent notification prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(8)).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: Name; organizational component; or user ID and password.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-15, Emergency Notification Records (last published at 81 FR 63313 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-16: PBGC Connect Search Center—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Division Manager, Information Technology Customer and Operations Service Division, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301.
This system of records is used by PBGC employees, interns and contractors to identify other PBGC employees, interns and contractors; and, to access contact information for PBGC employees, interns and contractors.
PBGC employees and contractors with PBGC network access.
Name; photograph; personal description; skills; interests; schools; birthday; mobile phone number; home phone number; organizational component and title; supervisor's name; PBGC street address; room or workstation number; PBGC network ID; work email address; and work telephone number and extension.
Subject individuals and PBGC personnel records.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: name; username; organizational component; job title;
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-16, Employee Online Directory (last published at 81 FR 63314 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-17: Office of Inspector General Investigative File System—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Office of Inspector General, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Office of the Inspector General, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
5 U.S.C. App. 3.
This system of records is used to supervise and conduct investigations relating to programs and operations of PBGC by the Inspector General.
Individuals named in investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG); complainants and subjects of complaints collected through the operation of the OIG Hotline; other individuals, including witnesses, sources, and members of the general public who are named individuals in connection with investigations conducted by OIG.
Information within this system relates to OIG investigations carried out under applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures. The investigations may relate to criminal, civil, or administrative matters. These OIG files may contain investigative reports; transcripts; internal staff memoranda; working drafts of papers to PBGC employees; investigative plans; litigation strategies; copies of personnel, financial, contractual, and property management records maintained by PBGC; information submitted by or about pension plan sponsors or plan participants; background data including arrest records, statements of informants and witnesses, and laboratory reports of evidence analysis; information and documentation received from other government agencies; search warrants, summonses and subpoenas; and other information related to investigations. Personal data in the system may consist of names, social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth and death, fingerprints, handwriting samples, reports of confidential informants, physical identifying data, voiceprints, polygraph tests, photographs, and individual personnel and payroll information.
Subject individuals; individual complainants; witnesses; interviews conducted during investigations; federal, state, tribal, and local government records; individual or company records; claim and payment files; employer medical records; insurance records; court records; articles from publications; financial data; bank information; telephone data; service providers; other law enforcement organizations; grantees and sub-grantees; contractors and subcontractors; pension plan sponsors and participants; and other sources.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) and:
1. General Routine Uses G1, G2, G4, G5, G7, and G9 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record relating to a person held in custody pending or during arraignment, trial, sentence, or extradition proceedings or after conviction may be disclosed to a federal, state, local, tribal or foreign prison; probation, parole, or pardon authority; or any other agency or individual involved with the maintenance, transportation, or release of such a person.
3. A record relating to a case or matter may be disclosed to an actual or potential party or his or her attorney for
4. A record may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, when reasonably necessary to elicit information or obtain the cooperation of a witness or informant when conducting any official investigation or during a trial or hearing or when preparing for a trial or hearing.
5. A record relating to a case or matter may be disclosed to a foreign country, through the United States Department of State or directly to the representative of such country, under an international treaty, convention, or executive agreement; or to the extent necessary to assist such country in apprehending or returning a fugitive to a jurisdiction that seeks that individual's return.
6. A record originating exclusively within this system of records may be disclosed to other federal offices of inspectors general and councils comprising officials from other federal offices of inspectors general, as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The purpose is to ensure that OIG investigative operations can be subject to integrity and efficiency peer reviews, and to permit other offices of inspectors general to investigate and report on allegations of misconduct by senior OIG officials as directed by a council, the President, or Congress. Records originating from any other PBGC systems of records, which may be duplicated in or incorporated into this system, also may be disclosed with all identifiable information redacted.
7. A record may be disclosed to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice when the OIG seeks an ex parte court order to obtain taxpayer information from the Internal Revenue Service.
8. A record may be disclosed to any governmental, professional or licensing authority when such record reflects on qualifications, either moral, educational or vocational, of an individual seeking to be licensed or to maintain a license.
9. A record may be disclosed to any direct or indirect recipient of federal funds,
10. A record may be disclosed where there is an indication of a violation or a potential violation of law, rule, regulation or order whether civil, criminal, administrative or regulatory in nature, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, tribal or local, or to a securities self-regulatory organization, charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation or order.
11. A record may be disclosed to federal, state, tribal or local authorities in order to obtain information or records relevant to an Office of Inspector General investigation or inquiry.
12. A record may be disclosed to a bar association, state accountancy board, or other federal, state, tribal, local, or foreign licensing or oversight authority; or professional association or self-regulatory authority to the extent that it performs similar functions (including the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) for investigations or possible disciplinary action.
13. A record may be disclosed to inform complainants, victims, and witnesses of the results of an investigation or inquiry.
14. To the Department of Justice for the purpose of obtaining advice on investigatory matters or in order to refer information for the purpose of prosecution.
15. To contractors, interns and experts who have been engaged to assist in an OIG investigation or in the performance of a service related to this system of records and require access to these records for the purpose of assisting the OIG in the efficient administration of its duties. All recipients of these records shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
16. To the public when the matter under investigation has become public knowledge, or when the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the OIG investigative process, to demonstrate the accountability of PBGC employees, or other individuals covered by this system, or when there exists a legitimate public interest, unless the Inspector General has determined that disclosure of specific information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records may be retrieved by any one or more of the following: name; social security number; subject category; or assigned case number.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
This system is exempt from the notification and record access requirements. However, consideration will be given to requests made in compliance with 29 CFR 4902.3 and 4902.4.
This system is exempt from amendment requirements. However, consideration will be given requests made in compliance with 29 CFR 4902.3 and 4902.5.
This system is exempt from the notification requirements. However, consideration will be given to inquiries made in compliance with 29 CFR 4902.3.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), PBGC has established regulations at 29 CFR 4902.11 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose.
PBGC-17, Inspector General Investigative File System (last published at 81 FR 63315 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-19: Office of General Counsel Case Management System — PBGC
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 and 1275 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Office of the General Counsel, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1303, 1310, 1321, 1322a, 1341, 1342, 1343 and 1350; 5 U.S.C. app. 105; 5 U.S.C. 301, 552(a), 552a(d), 7101; 42 U.S.C. 2000e,
The purpose of this system of records is to catalog, litigate, review or otherwise resolve any case or matter handled by the OGC.
Individuals who are participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees in pension plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1301,
Draft and final versions of notes, reports, memoranda; settlements; legal opinions; agreements; correspondence; contracts; contract proposals and other procurement documents; plan documents; participant, alternate payee, and beneficiary files; initial and final PBGC determinations of ERISA matters; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974 disclosures, determinations, appeals and decisions of those appeals; records and information obtained from other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and departments, including, but not limited to: Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration, Department of Treasury and Department of Justice; drafts and legal reviews of proposed personnel actions; ethics inquiries; personnel records; financial records; individual tax returns; litigation files; labor relations files; information provided by labor unions or other organizations; witness statements; summonses, subpoenas, discovery requests and responses; and, breach reports and supporting documentation.
Subject individuals; pension plan participants, sponsors, administrators and third-parties; federal government records; current and former employees, contractors, interns, and externs; PBGC debt and disbursement records; insurers; the Social Security Administration; labor organizations; court records; articles from publications; and other individuals, organizations, and corporate entities with relevant knowledge/information.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, in furtherance of proceedings under Title IV of ERISA, to a contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor or successor, and any member of the same control group.
3. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of employees, former employees, participants, and beneficiaries and information pertaining to debts to PBGC may be disclosed to the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, a credit agency, and a debt collection to collect the debt. Disclosure to a debt collection shall be made only under a contract that binds any such contractor or employee of such contractor to criminal penalties of the Privacy Act.
4. Information may be disclosed to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations in response to a court order or in connection with criminal law proceedings.
5. Information may be provided to a congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
6. Information may be provided to third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
7. Relevant and necessary information may be disclosed to a former employee of PBGC for the purposes of: (1) Responding to an official inquiry by federal, state, tribal or local government entity or professional licensing authority; or, (2) facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where PBGC requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
8. A record relating to a case or matter may be disseminated to a foreign country pursuant to an international treaty or convention entered into and ratified by the United States or to an executive agreement.
9. A record may be disseminated to a foreign country, through the United States Department of State or directly to the representative of such country, to the extent necessary to assist such country in civil or criminal proceedings in which the United States or one of its officers or agencies has an interest.
10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the FOIA, and to facilitate use of OGIS' mediation services.
11. A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are indexed by assigned case number and sequential record identifier. Records are full-text indexed and information from this system may be retrieved using any free-form key, which may include names, social security number, address, representative or any other personal identifiers. For certain systems, only individuals assigned to the particular matter may retrieve associated records.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals. Paper records are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically. Further, for certain systems covered by this notice, heightened security access is required. Such access is granted by the specific permissions group assigned to monitor that particular system and only authorized employees of the agency may retrieve, review or modify those records.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), records in this system are exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), (H), (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he or she would otherwise be entitled to by federal law, or for which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of these records, such material shall be provided to the individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of the material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government with an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.
PBGC-19, Office of General Counsel Case Management System (last published at 81 FR 63316 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-21: Reasonable Accommodation Records—PBGC System.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Reasonable Accommodations Coordinator, Human Resources Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 701
The purposes of this system are: (1) To allow PBGC to collect and maintain records on prospective, current, and former employees with disabilities who requested or received reasonable accommodation by PBGC; (2) to track and report the processing of requests for reasonable accommodation PBGC-wide to comply with applicable law and regulations; and (3) to and maintain the confidentiality of medical information submitted by or on behalf of applicants or employees requesting reasonable accommodation.
Prospective, current, and former employees of PBGC who request and/or receive a reasonable accommodation for a disability; and, authorized individuals or representatives (
Name and employment information of current or prospective employee needing an accommodation; requester's name and contact information (if different than the employee who needs an accommodation); date request was initiated; information concerning the nature of the disability and the need for accommodation, including appropriate medical documentation; occupational
Subject individuals; individual making the request (if different than the subject individuals); medical professionals; and the subject individuals' supervisor(s).
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system may be disclosed to physicians or other medical professionals to provide them with or obtain from them the necessary medical documentation and/or certification for reasonable accommodation.
3. A record from this system may be disclosed to another federal agency or commission with responsibility for labor or employment relations or other issues, including equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation issues, when that agency or commission has jurisdiction over reasonable accommodation issues.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to obtain advice regarding statutory, regulatory, policy, and other requirements related to reasonable accommodation.
5. A record from this system may be disclosed to appropriate third-parties contracted by the Agency to facilitate mediation or other dispute resolution procedures or programs.
6. A record from this system may be disclosed to the Department of Defense (DOD) for purposes of procuring assistive technologies and services through the Computer/Electronic Accommodation Program in response to a request for reasonable accommodation.
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: Employee name or assigned case number.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4 or to amend records pertaining to themselves in accordance with 29 CRF 4902.5, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-21, Reasonable Accommodation Records (last published at 81 FR 63317 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-22: Telework and Alternative Worksite Records—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Telework Managing Officer, Human Resources Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 6120.
The purpose of this system of records is to collect and maintain records on current and former employees who have participated in, presently participate in, or have sought to participate in PBGC's Telework Program.
Current and former employees of PBGC who have requested to participate in PBGC's Telework Program in order to work at an alternative worksite other than their official PBGC duty station.
Name, position title, grade, series, and department name; official PBGC duty station address and telephone number; alternative worksite address and telephone number(s); date telework agreement received and approved/denied; telework request and approval form; telework agreement, self-certification home safety checklist, and supervisor-employee checklist; type of telework requested (
Subject individuals; subject individuals' supervisors.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. A record from this system may be disclosed to federal, state, tribal or local governments during actual emergencies, exercises, or continuity of operations tests for the purposes of emergency preparedness and responding to emergency situations.
3. A record from this system may be disclosed to the Department of Labor when an employee is injured when working at home while in the performance of normal duties.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for use in its Telework Survey to provide consolidated data on participation in PBGC's Telework Program.
5. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate third-parties contracted by the Agency to facilitate mediation or other dispute resolution procedures or programs.
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network. Also, each of PBGC's departments has a Telework Liaison who may maintain copies of the records pertaining to employees working in his or her department.
Records may be retrieved by any one or more of the following: Employee name, and the department in which the employee works, will work, or previously worked.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
PBGC-22, Telework and Alternative Worksite Records (last published at 81 FR 63319 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-23: Internal Investigations of Allegations of Harassing Conduct—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Director, Human Resources Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 2000e,
This system of records is maintained for the purpose of upholding PBGC's policy to prevent and eradicate harassing conduct in the workplace, including conducting and resolving internal investigations of allegations of harassing conduct brought by or against PBGC employees, contractors or interns.
Current or former PBGC employees, contractors, and interns who have filed a complaint, made a report of harassment, or have been accused of harassing conduct.
The system contains all documents related to a complaint or report of harassment, which may include the name, position, grade, and supervisor(s) of the complainant and the accused; the complaint; statements of witnesses; reports of interviews; medical records; final decisions and corrective actions taken; and related correspondence and exhibits.
Subject individuals; PBGC supervisors, employees, contractors, and others with knowledge; outside counsel retained by subject individuals; and medical professionals.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. Disclosure of information from this system of records regarding the status of any investigation that may have been conducted may be made to the complaining party and to the individual against whom the complaint was made when the purpose of the disclosure is both relevant and necessary and is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected.
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are retrieved by any one or more of the following: Name; department; or unique identifier assigned to each incident reported.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Paper records are kept in cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), records in this system are exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he or she would otherwise be entitled to by federal law, or for which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of these records, such material shall be provided to the individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of the material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government with an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.
PBGC-23, Internal Investigations of Allegations of Harassing Conduct (last published at 81 FR 63320 (September 14, 2016)).
PBGC-24: Participant Debt Collection—PBGC
[RESCINDED]
PBGC-25: PBGC.GOV Comment Management System—PBGC.
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Division Manager, Communications Outreach and Legislative Affairs Department, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 44 U.S.C. Ch 36; 5 U.S.C. 301; 40 U.S.C. Subchapter II.
The information in this system is maintained to: provide a central location to search, view, download and comment on federal rulemaking documents; respond to the public's comments; track regulatory feedback; and, retain commenter information in order to respond to the public.
Any individual commenting on PBGC's rulemaking activities or submitting supporting materials; any individual initiating contact with the PBGC through use of the agency website.
Comments and supporting documentation from the public (may include name, email address, physical address, phone numbers, PBGC customer identification numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, dates of hire, dates of termination, marital status, pay status); agency rulemaking materials;
Individuals commenting on agency rulemaking; individuals contacting PBGC via the agency website.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through G14 apply to this system of records (see Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses).
2. Information, including personally identifiable information (PII), contained in comments about agency rulemaking, whether submitted through
Records are maintained in electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Information from this system may be retrieved by numerous data elements and key word searches, including, but not limited to name, dates, subject, and other information retrievable with full-text searching capability.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301, (
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request identifying the information they wish to correct in their file, in addition to following the requirements of the Record Access Procedure above.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
None.
None.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Cboe Data Services (“CDS”) fee schedule to increase the fees for the BBO, Book Depth, and Complex Order Book (“COB”) data feeds.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
The Exchange proposes to amend the CDS fee schedule to increase the fees for the BBO, Book Depth, and COB data feeds.
The BBO Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes the following information: (i) Outstanding quotes and standing orders at the best available price level on each side of the market; (ii) executed trades time, size, and price; (iii) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts at the best bid and offer (“BBO”); (iv) all-or-none contingency orders priced better than or equal to the BBO; (v) expected opening price and expected opening size; (vi) end-of-day summaries by product, including open, high, low, and closing price during the trading session; (vi) recap messages any time there is a change in the open, high, low or last sale price of a listed option; (vii) COB information; and (viii) product IDs and codes for all listed options contracts. The quote and last sale data contained in the BBO data feed is identical to the data sent to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) for redistribution to the public.
The Book Depth Data Feed is a real-time, low latency data feed that includes all data contained in the BBO Data Feed described above plus outstanding quotes and standing orders up to the first four price levels on each side of the market, with aggregate size (“Book Depth”).
CDS currently charges a Data Fee, payable by a Customer, of $1,500 per month for internal use and external redistribution of the BBO and/or Book Depth data feeds.
The Exchange proposes to increase the Data Fee for both the BBO and Book Depth data feeds from $1,500 per month to $2,500 per month.
The COB Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes data regarding the Exchange's Complex Order Book and related complex order information. The COB Data Feed contains the following information for all Exchange-traded complex order strategies (multi-leg strategies such as spreads, straddles and buy-writes): (i) Outstanding quotes and standing orders on each side of the market with aggregate size, (ii) data with respect to executed trades (“last sale data”), and (iii) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts.
CDS currently charges Customers
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fees on February 1, 2018.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act
In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair discrimination
In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to the above data feeds further ensure that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data products. For example, the above data feeds provide investors with alternative market data and competes with similar market data product currently offered by other exchanges. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges for the above data feeds, prospective users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to either market data product.
The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could not be done practically.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase in the Data Fee for BBO data is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because it is lower than fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,500 per organization and External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000 per organization for its “TOPO Plus Orders” data feed, which like the BBO Data Feed includes top-of-book data (including orders, quotes and trades) and other market data.
The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee for the Book Depth Data Feed is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because it is lower than fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, PHLX charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,000 and External Distributors a monthly fee of a $4,500 for its Depth data feed that includes full depth of quotes and orders and last sale data for options listed on PHLX.
The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee for the COB Data Feed is equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all Customers of the COB Data Feed. The Exchange proposes to increase the fee for the COB data feed to bring the cost of the data feed in line with, but still lower than, that of similar data feeds offered by other exchanges. For example, ISE charges distributors of its Spread Feed a base monthly fee of $3,000,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange's ability to price the BBO, Book Depth, ad COB data feeds is constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and (iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data feed products is constrained by (1) the existence of actual competition for the sale of such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and (3) the existence of alternatives to proprietary data.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, the market data vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will enable them to attract “eyeballs” that contribute to their advertising revenue. Similarly, Customers will not offer the BBO, Book Depth or COB Data Feeds unless these products will help them maintain current users or attract new ones. For example, a broker-dealer will not choose to offer the BBO, Book Depth or COB Data Feeds to its retail customers unless the broker-dealer believes that the retail customers will use and value the data and the provision of such data will help the broker-dealer maintain the customer relationship, which allows the broker-dealer to generate profits for itself. Professional users will not request any of these feeds from Customers unless they can use the data for profit-generating purposes in their businesses. All of these operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products. Thus, because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 15 options self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”) and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 8, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before March 8, 2018.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
Use the Commission's internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion of regulatory approaches to combat retail investor fraud; a discussion regarding cybersecurity risk disclosures (which may include a recommendation of the Investor as Owner Subcommittee); a discussion regarding financial support for law school clinics that support investors (which may include a recommendation of the Committee as a whole); a discussion regarding dual-class share structures (which may include a recommendation of the Investor as Owner Subcommittee); a discussion regarding efforts to combat the financial exploitation of vulnerable adults; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its monthly fee of $3,000 per month for any Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) that executes more than 20,000 SPX (including SPXW) contracts during the month (“FB SPX Surcharge”). Particularly, the Exchange proposes to adopt an exclusion for Multi-Class Broad-Based Index Option Spread Orders (“Multi-Class Spread Orders”).
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its monthly fee of $3,000 per month for any Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) that executes more than 20,000 SPX (including SPXW) contracts during the month (“FB SPX Surcharge”). Particularly, the Exchange proposes to adopt an exclusion for Multi-Class Broad-Based Index Option Spread Orders (“Multi-Class Spread Orders”).
By way of background, Cboe Options Rule 24.19 permits the execution of Multi-Class Spread Orders, which are generally defined as orders to buy a stated number of contracts of a broad-based index option or exchange-traded fund (“ETF”)/exchange-traded note (“ETN”) option derived from a broad-based index and to sell an equal number, or an equivalent number of contracts of a different broad-based index option or ETF/ETN option derived from a broad-based index. These orders may be represented at the trading station of either option involved, subject to the conditions in Rule 24.19.
The FB SPX Surcharge was not enacted with the intention of assessing it to Floor Brokers to whom it would only apply due to their execution of Multi-Class Spread Orders that included an SPX component. Rather, the surcharge was intended to be assessed on Floor Brokers that regularly execute SPX trades in the SPX trading crowd. In order to avoid being assessed the FB SPX Surcharge as a result of the execution of Multi-Class Spread Orders with an SPX component, the Exchange proposes to provide that Floor Brokers to which the FB SPX Surcharge is not otherwise applicable will not be assessed the FB SPX Surcharge if they only execute SPX open outcry transactions as part of a Multi-Class Spread Order. In order to identify those instances, the Exchange is proposing to require that Floor Brokers submit the Floor Broker SPX Surcharge Exclusion for Multi-Class Broad-Based Index Spread Transactions Form (the “Form”) within three business days of execution of the applicable spread transaction(s).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonable because it allows Floor Brokers to whom the FB SPX Surcharge would apply only due to their execution of Multi-Class Spread Orders with an SPX component to avoid having to pay the surcharge. The proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule change provides Floor Brokers not engaged in regular SPX trades with an opportunity to be excluded from the FB SPX Surcharge, which is intended to be assessed on those Floor Brokers who engage in transactions for which executing SPX trades is the primary purpose of such transactions (or are signing up to do so). The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change only affects trading on the Exchange's trading floor. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on February 1, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Volume Rebate (“BVR”) in Section I.B.2 of the Fee Schedule (Electronic Transaction Fees).
Under the current BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract rebate for all Public Customer PIP Orders and COPIP orders of 100 contracts and under that do not trade solely with their contra order. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. Further, Public Customer PIP Orders of 100 and under contracts that trade solely with their contra order receive a $0.03 per contract rebate, regardless of tier.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the BVR contract threshold necessary to qualify for the tiered contract rebate for all Public Customer PIP Orders and COPIP Orders to 250 contracts and under that do not trade solely with their contra order. The calculation of the percentage threshold will remain based on a Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. The Exchange also proposes to increase the BVR contract threshold for Public Customer PIP Orders that trade solely with their contra order to 250 contracts and under. These orders will continue to receive a $0.03 per contract rebate, regardless of tier.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the BVR in Section I.B.2 are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to attract Public Customer order flow to the Exchange by offering these Participants incentives to submit their PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange. Other Exchanges employ similar incentive programs.
As mentioned above, the BVR is intended to incentivize Public Customers to direct order flow to the Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the threshold eligibility for Public Customer PIP and COPIP Orders to 250 contracts and under. Increasing the BVR will result in greater liquidity and ultimately benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all Public Customers uniformly.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change burdens competition and will instead help promote competition by continuing to providing incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for price improvement.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1092, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors, by deleting a cross-reference to Rule 124(d).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Exchange Rule 1092 provides rules and procedures with respect to the nullification and adjustment of options transactions including obvious errors. Rule 1092(l) governs appeals to the Exchange Review Council of nullification and adjustment decisions by Options Exchange Officials.
The cross-reference to Rule 124(d) in Rule 1092 is therefore incorrect and inappropriate, and needlessly confusing. Moreover, it is unnecessary as Rule 1092 itself provides the necessary process for requesting and obtaining an appeal by the Exchange Review Council of nullification and adjustment decisions. The Exchange therefore proposes to remove the cross-reference.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The enhanced clarity of Rule 1092 resulting from this proposed rule change will benefit all market participants equally.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on February 1, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet 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
The Exchange proposes to amend Section VI (Technology Fees) in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section VI.B. (High Speed Vendor Feed (“HSVF”)) in the BOX Fee Schedule to revise the fee charged per month for all market participants for receiving the HSVF. The Exchange's proprietary HSVF is currently available to all market participants at a fee of $750.00 per month; however, the Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 per month for all market participants who receive the HSVF. This fee will be payable by any market participant that receives the HSVF through a direct connection to BOX and will be assessed once per market participant.
In February 2013, the Exchange made its proprietary direct market data product, the HSVF, available to all market participants at no cost.
The Exchange notes that data connection fees are charged by other options markets such as Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”), Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“C2”), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”), The Nasdaq Options Market (“NOM”), and Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers.' . . .”
BOX believes that the allocation of the proposed fee is fair and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As described in greater detail below, if BOX has calculated improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair, inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and BOX is not required to make data available or to offer specific pricing alternatives for potential purchases. BOX can discontinue offering a pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees
The Exchange's proprietary HSVF is currently available to all market participants at a fee of $750.00 per month; however, the Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $1,500.00 per month for all market participants who receive the HSVF. The Exchange believes that raising the HSVF fee to $1,500 per month per connection is reasonable and appropriate as it is within the connectivity fee range that is charged by other options exchanges.
In addition, the Exchange believes that its fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants are charged the same fee for access to the HSVF. Further, the Exchange notes that all market participants who wish to receive the feed may, as the feed is available to anyone willing to pay the proposed $1,500 monthly fee.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to the Fee Schedule will simply allow the Exchange to charge all market participants equally for the costs incurred by connecting to the BOX Network. The HSVF is similar to proprietary data products currently offered by other exchanges, and these other exchanges charge comparable monthly fees.
Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. BOX believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question.
There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products are valuable to many end subscribers only insofar as they provide information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's Participant's view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer (“BD”) will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because executions of the BD's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.” NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. Some exchanges pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an “excessive” price for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including BOX, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, a SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over 40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.
In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.” NetCoalition I at 539. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A BD that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. If a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected BDs will assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the
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 the fee schedule applicable to Members
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 its fee schedule for its equity options platform (“BZX Options”) to make certain changes to the following tiers: (i) Customer Penny Pilot Add Tiers under footnote 1; (ii) Quoting Incentive Program (“QIP”) Tiers under footnote 5; (iii) Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers under footnote 7; and (iv) Away Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers under 11.
The Exchange currently offers eight Customer
The Exchange currently offers three QIP Tiers under footnote 5, which provide an additional rebate ranging from $0.02 to $0.04 per contract for qualifying Market Maker
• Under current Tier 1, a Member may receive an additional rebate of $0.02 per contract where they have an ADV greater than or equal to 0.40% of average OCV. The Exchange proposes to amend the required criteria for Tier 1 to now require that the Member have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.15% of average OCV.
• Under current Tier 2, a Member may receive an additional rebate of $0.04 per contract where they have an ADV greater than or equal to 3.25% of average OCV. Similar to as proposed above for Tier 1, the Exchange proposes to amend the required criteria for Tier 2 to now require that the Member have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.35% of average OCV.
• Under Tier 3, a Member may receive an additional rebate of $0.03 per contract where they have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.50% of average OCV. The Exchange proposes to delete Tier 3.
The Exchange currently offers three Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers under footnote 7, which provide an enhanced rebate ranging from $0.45 to $0.65 per contract for qualifying Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Securities and yield fee code NM. The Exchange now proposes to amend the required criteria for Tiers 1 and 2 and delete the Tier 3.
• Under current Tier 1, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.45 per contract where they have an ADV greater than or equal to 0.40% of average OCV. The Exchange proposes to amend the required criteria for Tier 1 to now require that the Member have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.10% of average OCV.
• Under current Tier 2, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.52 per contract where they have an ADV greater than or equal to 1.30% of average OCV. Similar to as proposed above for Tier 1, the Exchange proposes to amend the required criteria for Tier 2 to now require that the Member have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.35% of average OCV.
• Under Tier 3, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.65 per contract where they have an ADAV in Market Maker orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities greater than or equal to 0.10% of average OCV and an ADAV in Non-Customer
The Exchange currently offers two Away Market Maker
• Under current Tier 1, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.40 per contract where they have an ADV greater than or equal to 0.40% of average OCV. The Exchange proposes to amend the required criteria for Tier 1 to now require that the Member have an ADAV in Non-Customer orders greater than or equal to 0.10% of average OCV.
• Under current Tier 2, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.52 per contract where they have an ADV greater than or equal to 1.30% of average OCV. Similar to as proposed above for Tier 1, the Exchange proposes to amend the required criteria for Tier 2 to now require that the Member have an ADAV in Non-Customer orders greater than or equal to 0.35% of average OCV.
The Exchange proposes to implement the above changes to its fee schedule on February 1, 2018.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the tiered pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory. Volume-based pricing such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provisions and/or growth patterns; and (iii) introduction of
Lastly, the Exchange believes that eliminating tiers are proposed herein is reasonable, fair, and equitable because this tier was not providing the desired result of incentivizing Members to increase their participation on the Exchange. As such, the Exchange also believes that the proposed elimination of this tier would be non-discriminatory in that it currently applies equally to all Members and, upon elimination, would no longer be available to any Members. Further, its elimination could allow the Exchange to explore other pricing mechanisms such as those described herein, in which it may enhance market quality for all Members.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to its fee schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes burdens competition, but instead, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Cboe Data Services (“CDS”) fee schedule to increase the fees for the BBO, Book Depth, and Complex Order Book (“COB”) data feeds.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the CDS fee schedule to increase the fees for the BBO, Book Depth, and COB data feeds.
The BBO Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes the following information: (i) Outstanding quotes and standing orders at the best available price level on each side of the market; (ii) executed trades time, size, and price; (iii) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts at the best bid and offer (“BBO”); (iv) all-or-none contingency orders priced better than or equal to the BBO; (v) expected opening price and expected opening size; (vi) end-of-day summaries by product, including open, high, low, and closing price during the trading session; (vi) recap messages any time there is a change in the open, high, low or last sale price of a listed option; (vii) COB information; and (viii) product IDs and codes for all listed options contracts. The quote and last sale data contained in the BBO data feed is identical to the data sent to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) for redistribution to the public.
The Book Depth Data Feed is a real-time, low latency data feed that includes all data contained in the BBO Data Feed described above plus outstanding quotes and standing orders up to the first four price levels on each side of the market, with aggregate size (“Book Depth”).
CDS currently charges a Data Fee, payable by a Customer, of $7,000 per month for internal use and external redistribution of the BBO and/or Book Depth data feeds.
The Exchange proposes to increase the Data Fee for both the BBO and Book Depth data feeds from $7,000 per month to $9,000 per month.
The COB Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes data regarding the Exchange's Complex Order Book and related complex order information. The COB Data Feed contains the following information for all Exchange-traded complex order strategies (multi-leg strategies such as spreads, straddles and buy-writes): (i) Outstanding quotes and standing orders on each side of the market with aggregate size, (ii) data with respect to executed trades (“last sale data”), and (iii) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts.
CDS currently charges Customers
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fees on February 1, 2018.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act
In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data vendors who subscribe to the above data feeds will be subject to the proposed fees. The above data feeds are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation purchase this data or to make this data available. Accordingly, distributors and users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to the above data feeds further ensure that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data products. For example, the above data feeds provide investors with alternative market data and competes with similar market data product currently offered by other exchanges. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges for the above data feeds, prospective users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to either market data product.
The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could not be done practically.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase in the Data Fee for BBO data is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,500 per organization and External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000 per organization for its “TOPO Plus Orders” data feed, which like the BBO Data Feed includes top-of-book data (including orders, quotes and trades) and other market data.
The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee for the Book Depth Data Feed is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, PHLX charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,000 and External Distributors a monthly fee of a $4,500 for its Depth data feed that includes full depth of quotes and orders and last sale data for options listed on PHLX.
The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee for the COB Data Feed is equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all Customers of the COB Data Feed. The Exchange notes that it had previously charged a Data Fee of $3,000 per month for the COB Feed
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange's ability to price the BBO, Book Depth, ad COB data feeds is constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and (iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data feed products is constrained by (1) the existence of actual competition for the sale of such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and (3) the existence of alternatives to proprietary data.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, the market data vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will enable them to attract “eyeballs” that contribute to their advertising revenue. Similarly, Customers will not offer the BBO, Book Depth or COB Data Feeds unless these products will help them maintain current users or attract new ones. For example, a broker-dealer will not choose to offer the BBO, Book Depth or COB Data Feeds to its retail customers unless the broker-dealer believes that the retail customers will use and value the data and the provision of such data will help the broker-dealer maintain the customer relationship, which allows the broker-dealer to generate profits for itself. Professional users will not request any of these feeds from Customers unless they can use the data for profit-generating purposes in their businesses. All of these operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products. Thus, because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 15 options self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”) and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools
The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delete Rules that no longer apply to the Exchange and make other nonsubstantive changes to the Rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to delete Rules that no longer apply to the Exchange and to make other nonsubstantive changes to the Rules.
The Exchange proposes to delete the following rules and chapters from its rulebook:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed rule change deletes Rules 7.1 through 7.3, 7.4 except for subparagraph (a)(1) (which is being moved to Rule 6.11, with some modifications described below), 7.5, 7.7 through 7.10, and Chapter VII, Section B, as they relate solely to responsibilities of Order Book Officials.
Rule 7.4(a)(1) states public customer orders in Hybrid and Hybrid 3.0 classes are eligible for entry into the electronic book, and the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis other orders that are eligible for entry into the electronic book. Currently, after a class is open for trading (see current Rule 6.2B (proposed Rule 6.2) for a description of orders the System accepts prior to opening), the System accepts for entry into the Book (1) quotes of all Market-Makers and orders of any origin code in Hybrid classes and (2) quotes of Lead Market-Makers (“LMMs”) and orders of priority customers in Hybrid 3.0 classes, while the Exchange continues to have flexibility to permit orders of other origin codes be eligible for book entry. The Exchange proposes to codify this current book eligibility (which is consistent with the Exchange's authority in current Rule 7.4(a)(1)) in Rule 6.11. The proposed rule change also deletes the provision in current Rule 7.4(a)(1) that states Trading Permit Holders submitting orders or quotes for entry in to the book must do so electronically and in the format announced by the Exchange. It is redundant to state orders and quotes for entry in the electronic book must be submitted electronically, and Rule 6.53A describes the types of order formats Trading Permit Holders must use.
Rule 7.5, Interpretation and Policy .03 states every Floor Broker who represents a Market-Maker with an order in any options class must, by public outcry at the post, indicate the identity of such Market-Maker at the request of any Trading Permit Holder or Order Book Official. The proposed rule change moves this provision (with the reference to Order Book Official deleted) to Rule 6.73, which relates to responsibilities of Floor Brokers.
Rule 7.6 regarding the requirement for PAR Official to report unusual activity is proposed to move to Rule 6.12B(b)(v).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pursuant to Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Section 6(b)(10) of the Act
Rules 31.82 through 31.88 currently include provisions that cover these proxy voting requirements with respect to Trading Permit Holders. However, because this proposed rule change deletes Chapter XXXI, the proposed rule change adds Rule 4.25 to retain the provisions required by Section 957. Proposed Rule 4.25 is substantially similar to rules of other options exchanges.
•
•
In addition to nonsubstantive changes described above, the proposed rule change makes the following nonsubstantive changes:
• The proposed rule change moves Interpretation and Policy .01 to the definition of Professional in Rule 1.1(ggg) to Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 1.1, so that all Interpretations and Policies to Rule 1.1 are in the same place.
• Currently, there are two paragraphs erroneously lettered as Rule 1.1(mmm) and (ppp). The proposed rule change corrects this lettering and updates the paragraph lettering to reflect these corrections.
• The proposed rule change makes updates throughout the rules to conform paragraph lettering and numbering to other rules, as well as to reflect deleted rule provisions.
• Rule 6.2, Interpretation and Policy .01(b) and (c) erroneously refer to LMMs as LLMs. The proposed rule change corrects [sic] those erroneous references.
The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.43(b) to indicate it only applies to Hybrid 3.0 classes, which is consistent with the current rule text and current trading practices.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, by deleting rules that no longer apply to Cboe Options trading (which rules have generally not been applicable in years), and making other nonsubstantive changes to better organize and more consistently number and letter rules, the rules will more clearly identify currently applicable rules, which the Exchange believes removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will eliminate confusion regarding which rules apply to current trading, which ultimately protects investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change has no impact on current trading on Cboe Options.
The proposed rule change regarding proxy voting is substantially similar to C2 Supplemental Rules to C2 Chapter 4 and Nasdaq ISE Rule 421 and consistent with Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change deletes rules that no longer apply to Cboe Options trading and makes other nonsubstantive changes, and thus has no impact on current trading on Cboe Options. Therefore, the proposed rule change has no impact on competition. The proposed rule change eliminates confusion with respect to rules applicable to current trading on Cboe Options.
The proposed rule change regarding proxy voting is substantially similar to C2 Supplemental Rules to C2 Chapter 4 and Nasdaq ISE Rule 421 and consistent with Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to exclude A.M. and P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates from its pricing for Strategy Caps and for FLEX transactions.
While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on February 1, 2018.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
The Exchange lists A.M. and P.M.-settled options on the Nasdaq 100® Index with nonstandard expiration dates under the symbols “NDX” and “NDXP,”
Presently, however, one category of fee cap remains applicable to transactions in NDX and NDXP. Pursuant to Section II of the Pricing Schedule, transactions in NDX and NDXP are subject to so-called “Strategy Caps.” Strategy Caps limit the fees that otherwise apply to certain categories of options participants when they engage in Floor options transactions while employing strategies set forth in the Pricing Schedule, namely dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll, or box spread strategies.
Additionally, pursuant to Section IV.B. of the Pricing Schedule, special pricing applies to transactions by Customers and Non-Customers in NDX and NDXP FLEX options.
The Exchange proposes to amend these two provisions of the Pricing Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Section II to exempt transactions in NDX and NDXP from Strategy Caps. Second, the Exchange proposes to apply Section II pricing to transactions in NDX and NDXP FLEX options. Accordingly, electronic and floor options transaction charges for FLEX options overlying NDX and NDXP will be $0.75 per contract for all Non-Customers. No transaction charge will apply to Customers for NDX or NDXP FLEX options. A $0.25 per contract surcharge will be assessed to Non-Customers in NDX and NDXP FLEX options.
The purpose of these two amendments to the Pricing Schedule is to further refine the pricing of transactions in NDX and NDXP to reflect the exclusive and proprietary nature of these products.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDX and NDXP options transactions from the Strategy Caps in Section II of the Pricing Schedule is reasonable because these caps apply to Multiply-Listed Options and NDX and NDXP are not Multiply-Listed Options. As noted above, NDX and NDXP are listed exclusively on the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that such caps are necessary to incentivize member organizations to execute strategies on the Floor involving products like NDX or NDXP that are exclusive to it. The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDX and NDXP options transactions from Strategy Caps is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply this cap exclusion in a uniform manner.
The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDX and NDXP FLEX options from Section IV.B.—FLEX Transaction Fees pricing and instead apply to such transactions Section II pricing is reasonable because the Exchange believes that FLEX option pricing will continue to be competitive despite the exclusion of NDX and NDXP. The Exchange's proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly exclude NDX
The Exchange notes that the proposed transaction charges for NDX and NDXP FLEX options are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as NDX and NDXP are exclusively listed products. The Exchange seeks to recoup its operational costs
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange notes that with its products, market participants are offered an opportunity to either transact NDX or NDXP or separately execute options overlying PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQ”). Offering products such as QQQ provides market participants with a variety of choices in selecting the product they desire to utilize to transact the Nasdaq 100 Index.
The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDX and NDXP from the Strategies Caps does not impose an undue burden on competition because no market participant would be eligible to count NDX or NDXP toward the Strategies Caps.
The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDX and NDXP from FLEX Option pricing in Section IV.B. and instead apply Section II pricing to such transactions does not impose an undue burden on competition because the proposal would apply to participants in FLEX NDX and NDXP options transactions the same transactions fees that it assess for other types of NDX and NDXP options transactions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
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 its fee schedule for its equity options platform (“EDGX Options”) to decrease the Exchange's standard rebate for Customer
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee schedule on February 1, 2018.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to reduce the rebate provided by fee code PF [sic] is fair and equitable and reasonable because the proposed rebate remains consistent with pricing previously offered by the Exchange as well as its competitors and does not represent a significant departure from the Exchange's general pricing structure. Specifically, the Exchange notes that it previously provided a rebate of $0.01 per share to orders that yielded fee codes PC and NC prior to increasing the rebate to its current level.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its fee schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation has rescheduled the previously announced September 10-11 meeting (see 82 FR 55150). The new dates for the meeting are August 27-28.
The committee will meet on August 27, 2018, in open session to discuss unclassified matters concerning declassification and transfer of Department of State records to the National Archives and Records Administration and the status of the
The Committee will meet in open session from 11:00 a.m. until noon in SA-4D Conference Room, Department of State, 2300 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20372 (Potomac Navy Hill Annex). RSVP should be sent not later than August 20, 2018. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be made by August 13, 2018. Requests made after that date will be considered, but might not be possible to fulfill.
Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Reneé A. Goings, or Adam Howard, Department of State, Office of the Historian, Washington, DC 20372, telephone (202) 955-0200, (email
Note that requests for reasonable accommodation received after the date indicated in this notice will be considered, but might not be possible to fulfill.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of decision instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's 2017 cost of capital.
The Board is instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's cost of capital for 2017. The decision solicits comments on the following issues: The railroads' 2017 current cost of debt capital; the railroads' 2017 current cost of preferred equity capital (if any); the railroads' 2017 cost of common equity capital; and the 2017 capital structure mix of the railroad industry on a market value basis. Comments should focus on the various cost of capital components listed above using the same methodology followed in
Notices of intent to participate are due by March 30, 2018. Statements of the railroads are due by April 20, 2018. Statements of other interested persons are due by May 11, 2018. Rebuttal statements by the railroads are due by June 1, 2018.
Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing system or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's website, at
Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
The Board's decision is posted on the Board's website,
49 U.S.C. 10704(a).
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
Surface Transportation Board.
Proposed railroad cost recovery procedures productivity adjustment.
In a decision served on February 8, 2018, the Board proposed to adopt 0.996 (−0.4% per year) as the measure of average (geometric mean) change in railroad productivity for the 2012-2016 (five-year) period. This represents an increase of 0.3% from the average for the 2011-2015 period. The Board's February 8, 2018 decision in this proceeding stated that comments may be filed addressing any perceived data and computational errors in the Board's calculation. It also stated that, if there were no further action taken by the Board, the proposed productivity adjustment would become effective on March 1, 2018.
The productivity adjustment is effective March 1, 2018. Comments are due by February 23, 2018.
Send comments (an original and 10 copies) referring to Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 4) to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001.
Michael Smith, (202) 245-0322. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired, (800) 877-8339.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on the Board's website at
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fifty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fifty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary.
The meeting will be held March 29, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
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 for a meeting of the Fifty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary. 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 Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fiftieth RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fiftieth RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary.
The meeting will be held March 15, 2018 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: Harris Corporation—Technology Center, 1395 Troutman Blvd NE, Palm Bay, FL 32905. Pre-registration is required by March 2nd.
Karan Hofmann at
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 for a meeting of the Fiftieth RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary. 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 Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.
The meeting will be held March 22, 2018 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
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 for a meeting of the RTCA PMC Program Management Committee Meeting. 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 of renewal of exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew for a period of 5 years TowMate, LLC's (TowMate's) current exemption allowing motor carriers to operate rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations. Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), all required lamps, with the exception of battery-powered lamps used on projecting loads, must be powered by the electrical system of the motor vehicle. The Agency has concluded that granting this exemption renewal would not have an adverse impact on safety, and that use of rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation. However, the Agency requests comments and information on the exemption, especially from anyone who believes this standard will not be maintained.
This decision takes effect February 9, 2018. Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2015-0238 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Amina Dines, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-2782,
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). This authority is codified in 49 CFR part 381. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
The decision of the Agency must be published in the
TowMate applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.23 to allow motor carriers to operate rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Section 393.23, “Power Supply for Lamps,” provides that “All required lamps must be powered by the electrical system of the motor vehicle with the exception of battery powered lamps used on projecting loads.”
The application stated:
TowMate is making this request because the use of conventional hard wired temporary stop, turn, and tail lights has many drawbacks that wireless tow lights solve. These include broken connections, frayed wires, burnt out incandescent bulbs, and the potential to be snagged or pulled from the tow light receptacle due to improper running of wires, and road hazards, along with the safety hazard of increasing the amount of time spent on the roadside or the scene of an accident by stringing wired lighting systems between vehicles and securing the wires. With the advent of LED technology coupled with advancements in battery technologies, wireless tow lights are more reliable and better equipped for the rigors of daily temporary use.
Temporary wireless stop, turn, tail lighting systems can operate for 10+ hours of
Without the proposed temporary exemption, tow and haul away operators will be forced to continue to use cumbersome wired temporary towing light systems, placing an unnecessary burden on their daily operations. The current temporary lighting requirements for stop, tail, and turn lamps require that the lamps receive their power from a direct wired connection to the towing vehicle with no ascertainable benefit from doing such. Wireless tow lights afford benefits that wired systems are unable to, such as redundancies like monitoring the status of the unit in real time, thus assuring their proper operation at all times.
On August 6, 2015, FMCSA published notice of the TowMate application and requested public comment (80 FR 47031). The Agency received twenty comments, all in support of TowMate's application. FMCSA granted the exemption on February 9, 2016 (81 FR 6927). The Agency concluded that permitting the use of rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations will reduce the time tow operators spend at the side of the road connecting wired lighting systems between vehicles, thereby reducing their risk of injury and increasing safety. The Agency determined that use of the rechargeable wireless lighting systems will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption. In towing operations during the exemption period, motor carriers are allowed to use rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems that do not meet the lighting power supply requirements of 49 CFR 393.23, provided the requirements of 49 CFR 393.17(b)(2) are met. The decision to grant the temporary exemption was also consistent with an amendment made in an August 15, 2005 final rule allowing battery powered lamps on the rear of projecting loads.
At the time the exemption was granted, the term of temporary exemptions was limited by statute to a maximum of 2 years. However, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, signed on December 4, 2015, now allows an exemption to be granted for a period of up to 5 years (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(2)) if FMCSA finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption” (§ 31315(b)(1)). TowMate has requested a 5-year extension of the current exemption.
FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that the operation of rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations during the current exemption has resulted in any degradation of safety. The Agency believes that extending the exemption for a period of 5 years will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
The renewal outlined in this notice extends the exemption from February 9, 2018, through February 9, 2023, and requests public comment. During that period, motor carriers will be allowed to use rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems that do not meet the lighting power supply requirements of 49 CFR 393.23 during temporary towing operations, provided the requirements of 49 CFR 393.17(b)(2) are met. The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
FMCSA requests comments from parties with data concerning the safety record of motor carriers using rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations in accordance with the conditions of the exemption. The Agency will evaluate adverse evidence submitted during the comment period and at any time during the 5-year period of the exemption. If safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(1), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on November 7, 2017, Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTDC) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 236. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0118.
In accordance with 49 CFR 236.588, RTDC is requesting approval to perform periodic testing of the Automatic Train Control system (ATC) at an interval of 92 days for the RTDC fleet of electric multiple unit equipment (EMUs), numbered RTDC 4001 through RTDC 4066. Currently RTDC is performing ATC periodic testing at an interval of 60 days as required by 49 CFR 236.588. In support of this request, RTDC states that the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Siemens Rail Automation (formerly PHW, Inc.) has developed the maintenance and testing program for these vehicles based on a 92-day interval. RTDC has included relevant portions of this program with its petition. RTDC further states that to date, there have been no issues with the ATC system found during periodic testing that would be impacted by increasing the testing interval to 92 days. RTDC adds that granting the
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 30, 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.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that by a letter dated December 21, 2017, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of its waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 232. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2006-25764.
UP originally received conditional relief in 2007 from 49 CFR 232.205,
• Inability to adjust its infrastructure due to Calexico yard's location in the middle of the city (causing the yard to be effectively “boxed in” by existing development and the locations of highway crossings);
• The need to avoid “bottleneck” delays at Calexico, affecting commerce on both sides of the border; and
• The elimination of choked flow of automobile traffic in Calexico, when trains stop or go very slowly across street crossings for inspections.
UP's relief was extended for an additional five years in a decision letter dated March 26, 2013. In support of its present petition to extend its relief, UP states it has been operating under the requirements set forth in the waiver for the past ten years and no adverse effect on the safety of operations has occurred.
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 30, 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.). 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.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice to U.S.-flag launch barge owners and operators.
The Maritime Administration is updating its inventory of U.S.-flag launch barges. Additions, changes and comments to the list are requested. Launch barge information may be found at
Submit comments on or before March 15, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0020. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
Pursuant to 46 CFR part 389 (Docket No. MARAD-2008-0045) Determination of Availability of Coastwise-Qualified Vessels for the Transportation of Platform Jackets, the Final Rule requires that the Maritime Administration publish a notice in the
(1) Their interest in participating in the transportation and, if needed, the launching or installation of offshore platform jackets; (2) the contact information for their company; and, (3) the specifications of any currently owned or operated coastwise qualified launch barges or plans to construct same.
In addition, we are also seeking information on non-coastwise qualified (U.S.-flag) launch barges as well.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of three persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On February 7, 2018, OFAC determined that that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. MUHAMMAD, Rahman Zeb Faqir (a.k.a. MUHAMMAD, Rahman Zayb Faqir; a.k.a. “ALAMZEB”; a.k.a. “AURANGZEB”; a.k.a. “KHAN, Rahman Ieb”; a.k.a. “ZAIB, Alam”; a.k.a. “ZAIB, Rehman”; a.k.a. “ZEB, Rahman R”), Bashgram Laal Qila Wersakay, Lower Dir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan; Lalqillah, Lower Dir District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan; DOB 01 Jan 1970; alt. DOB 01 Jan 1974; POB Dir, Pakistan; nationality Pakistan; National ID No. 1530562382221 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: LASHKAR E-TAYYIBA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, LASHKAR E-TAYYIBA, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. KHAN, Hizb Ullah Astam (a.k.a. MOAZZAM, Hizbullah Qari; a.k.a. “Hazab Allah”; a.k.a. “Hazab Ullah”; a.k.a. “Hazeb Ullah”; a.k.a. “Hazib Ullah”; a.k.a. “Hiz Bullah”; a.k.a. “Hizb Allah”; a.k.a. “Hizb Ullah”; a.k.a. “Hizbulah”; a.k.a. “Hizbullah”; a.k.a. “Qari Hizbullah”), House Number 5, Akhunabad, Shaheen Muslim Town, Peshawar, Pakistan; House Number 5, Akhunabad, Chok Yadagr Branch, Peshawar, Pakistan; Matin, Darah-ye Pech District, Kunar Province, Afghanistan; DOB 01 Mar 1982; alt. DOB 03 Jan 1982; POB Peshawar, Pakistan; nationality Pakistan; National ID No. 1730113198199 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AMEEN AL-PESHAWARI, Fazeel-A-Tul Shaykh Abu Mohammed).
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 AMEEN AL-PESHAWARI, Fazeel-A-Tul Shaykh Abu Mohammed, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. KHAN, Dilawar Khan Nadir (a.k.a. KHAN, Dilawar), Peshawar, Khyber Pahktunkhwa Province, Pakistan; DOB 1982; alt. DOB 1981; POB Lower Dir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan; nationality Pakistan; citizen Pakistan (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AMEEN AL-PESHAWARI, Fazeel-A-Tul Shaykh Abu Mohammed).
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 AMEEN AL-PESHAWARI, Fazeel-A-Tul Shaykh Abu Mohammed, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 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 16, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0156 in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through FDMS.
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. 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.
38 U.S.C. 3020.
By direction of the Secretary.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the egg products inspection regulations by requiring official plants that process egg products (herein also referred to as “egg products plants” or “plants”) to develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (Sanitation SOPs) and to meet other sanitation requirements consistent with the meat and poultry regulations. FSIS is proposing to eliminate those current regulatory provisions that are inconsistent with HACCP, Sanitation SOPs, and the proposed sanitation requirements. FSIS is also proposing to specify in the regulations that official plants are required to process egg products to be edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety.
In addition, FSIS is proposing to: Provide for generic approval as part of the prior label approval system for egg products; make changes to labeling requirements for shell eggs consistent with those in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulations; require special handling instructions on egg products; eliminate the requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment; incorporate egg products plants into the coverage of the “Rules of Practice” that the Agency follows when initiating administrative enforcement actions; and change the Agency's interpretation of the requirement for continuous inspection in agency law.
FSIS is also announcing that it is seeking public comment on draft guidance designed to help small and very small plants producing egg products to meet the new regulatory requirements being proposed in this rulemaking. Should the rule become final, FSIS intends to finalize this guidance.
Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2018. FSIS is providing a longer comment period than typical for this proposed rule because of the magnitude of the proposed action and the need to provide for possible public meetings on the proposed action.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule and the draft guidance. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Victoria A. Levine, Program Analyst, Issuances Staff, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6079, South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; telephone (202) 720-5627; fax (202) 690-0486.
FSIS is proposing to amend the egg products inspection regulations (9 CFR part 590) to require that official plants
Existing regulations that FSIS is proposing to revise or eliminate include those relating to egg products plant grounds and pest management; plant sanitation; plant construction, including rooms, doors, and windows; lighting; ventilation and odors; plumbing; sewage disposal; water supply and solution re-use; and dressing rooms, lavatories, and toilets. The Agency is proposing to replace all of these with general sanitation requirements, as it has previously done with the requirements on the same subjects in the meat and poultry products regulations.
The Agency is also proposing to specify in the regulations that official plants are required to process egg products to be edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety (proposed 9 CFR 590.570). This will ensure that the products are free of detectable pathogens. The proposed regulations will require egg product plants to maintain control of egg products that have been sampled and tested for public health hazards,
The Agency is proposing to make the egg products labeling and “other consumer protection” requirements, including requirements for generically approved labeling, more like the labeling requirements for meat and poultry products (proposed 9 CFR 590.412).
FSIS is proposing to align the import requirements for eggs and egg products more closely with the import requirements for meat and poultry products (proposed 9 CFR 590, Subpart B).
FSIS is proposing to change organizational terms and job titles that appear in the regulations but that are no longer used in FSIS (proposed amendment of 9 CFR 590.5).
FSIS is also proposing to change the Agency's interpretation of the requirement for continuous inspection in 21 U.S.C. 1034(a). Inspection will no
Finally, FSIS is proposing to replace the rules of practice governing enforcement procedures for egg product plants with those that apply to meat and poultry product establishments (proposed amendments to 9 CFR part 500).
Costs attributable to the proposed rule are those associated with the development and implementation of HACCP plans and Sanitation SOPs and the need for new product labels with safe-handling instructions. The impact of the costs is somewhat mitigated by the fact that 93 percent of egg products plants already use a written HACCP plan to address at least one production step in their process.
FSIS will continue to test for
The proposed rule will provide greater flexibility and incentives for innovation through reductions in paperwork and unnecessary approvals. In addition, plants voluntarily meeting HACCP requirements and also complying with current prescriptive regulations would reduce costs because they would be operating entirely under HACCP requirements.
A copy of each document referenced in this notice of proposed rulemaking is available for viewing in the FSIS Docket Room, on the FSIS website as a related document associated with this docket, and on
FSIS carries out its food safety responsibilities with respect to eggs and egg products under the provisions of the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056).
To prevent the entry into commerce of any egg product that is capable of use as human food and is misbranded or adulterated, the Secretary of Agriculture regulates the processing of egg products under 21 U.S.C. 1034. Section 1034(a) states that the Secretary “shall, whenever processing operations are being conducted, cause continuous inspection to be made, in accordance with the regulations promulgated under this Act, of the processing of egg products, in each plant processing for commerce, . . . .” Therefore, under FSIS's current interpretation of the EPIA, an inspector needs to be on the premises during all such operations. The Secretary has also been authorized to make inspections, as appropriate, of the facilities of egg handlers (including transport vehicles) to determine whether shell eggs destined for the ultimate consumer are being held under refrigeration at an ambient temperature of no greater than 45 degrees Fahrenheit after packing and contain labeling that indicates that refrigeration is required (21 U.S.C. 1034(e)).
Under 21 U.S.C. 1043, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the purposes or provisions of the Act. The Secretary is also responsible for the administration and enforcement of the EPIA, except as otherwise provided in 21 U.S.C. 1034(d).
Under the EPIA, FSIS regulates egg products. FSIS also has been delegated the authority to establish temperature and labeling requirements applicable to shell eggs destined for the ultimate consumer (
Under 21 U.S.C. 1033(f), the term “egg product” means any “dried, frozen, or liquid eggs, with or without added ingredients, excepting products which contain eggs only in a relatively small proportion or historically have not been, in the judgment of the Secretary, considered by consumers as products of the egg food industry, and which may be exempted by the Secretary under such conditions as he may prescribe to assure that the egg ingredients are not adulterated and such products are not represented as egg products.” The EPIA does not define “relatively small proportion,” nor does it provide additional guidance as to what criteria the Secretary should take into consideration when determining what egg products consumers consider to be products of the egg food industry.
Under 21 U.S.C. 1034(a), the Secretary requires continuous inspection to be made of the processing of egg products in each plant processing for commerce. There are currently 77 such official plants that are under FSIS jurisdiction. Under the EPIA, “processing” means “manufacturing egg products, including breaking eggs or filtering, mixing, blending, pasteurizing, stabilizing, cooling, freezing, drying, or packaging egg products” (21 U.S.C. 1033(w)). Thus, egg products processing operations, such as mixing, pasteurizing, freezing, packaging, or relabeling, must be conducted under continuous Agency inspection.
The definition of “egg product” in the egg products inspection regulations (9 CFR 590.5) includes a list of specific products that have been exempted as not being “egg products.” These exempted products include freeze-dried products; imitation egg products; egg substitutes; dietary foods; dried no-bake custard mixes; egg nog mixes; acidic dressings; noodles; milk and egg dip; cake mixes; French toast; and sandwiches containing eggs or egg products. Such products must, however, be prepared from inspected egg products or from eggs containing no more restricted eggs than are allowed in the official standards for U.S. Consumer Grade B shell eggs.
As stated above, products that contain eggs only in a relatively small proportion are exempted from the definition of “egg product” and thus not amenable under the EPIA. Several of the products listed in the preceding paragraph have been exempted from the coverage of “egg products” for this reason, including dried no-bake custard mixes; egg nog mixes; acidic dressings; noodles; milk and egg dip; cake mixes; and French toast. The egg product ingredients in these foods are not easily distinguished in the food and are used simply to add flavor. Other products that include eggs but are not subject to FSIS jurisdiction are closed-face sandwiches containing eggs or egg products and balut, a Philippine delicacy. These products are subject to the jurisdiction of FDA.
Cooked egg products, such as cooked egg patties, cooked omelets, and freeze-dried cooked eggs, also fall under FDA's jurisdiction because they are produced from USDA-inspected and passed egg products. To eliminate confusion as to who has statutory authority over these types of products, FSIS is proposing to amend the definition of “egg product” in 9 CFR 590.5 to include cooked egg products as not being egg products under FSIS jurisdiction.
FSIS considers a product to be amenable under the EPIA if it consists of dried, frozen, or liquid eggs, with or without added ingredients. Examples include Pasteurized Frozen Whole Egg with citric acid; plain Pasteurized Frozen Whole Egg without added ingredients; Pasteurized Liquid Yolk with 10% salt; Pasteurized Frozen Scrambled Egg Mix with Whole Egg and pepper, starch, and dried milk; Frozen Yolks with 10% sugar added; Frozen Egg Whites with whipping aids (such as sodium sulfate or triethyl citrate); Pasteurized Enzyme Modified Dried Egg Product with Egg Yolks and xanthan gum and citric acid to preserve color, and less than 1% silicon dioxide as an anticaking agent and phospholipase; Spray Dried Albumin; and Spray Dried Egg Whites with calcium citrate and salt (or other added ingredients).
FSIS has determined that some of the products on the list of specific products that have been exempted as not being “egg products” are incorrectly categorized as such. FSIS believes that these products, egg substitutes and freeze-dried egg products, are, in fact, egg products, and should therefore no longer be exempt from inspection by FSIS under the EPIA. FSIS is seeking comment on the number of facilities that might become dual jurisdiction facilities, that is, regulated by FSIS and FDA, if egg substitutes and freeze-dried egg products are no longer exempt from FSIS inspection.
Egg substitutes are low-cholesterol products that are characterized by yolk replacement by other non-egg ingredients such as vegetable oil, nonfat dry milk, soy protein, gums, food coloring, artificial flavors, and vitamins and minerals (for nutritional fortification). The fundamental ingredient in these products is egg white, but they may also include added
As a result, egg substitutes are under the jurisdiction of FDA. FDA has overseen the formulation, packaging, labeling, storage, and transportation of egg substitutes under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 301-399). Egg substitutes do not undergo continuous inspection during processing (unless the starting ingredient is unpasteurized egg white), and most egg substitutes do not bear a USDA inspection legend.
However, FSIS tentatively finds that egg substitutes should no longer be exempt from inspection by FSIS under the EPIA. Egg substitutes are similar, if not identical, in some cases, in formulation to egg products. Indeed, the egg product ingredient is distinctive and significantly contributes to the basic nature of egg substitutes by characterizing the food. The only substantive difference among these categories of products is color and nutrients. When a color additive is mixed with pasteurized egg whites, the resulting product is called an “egg substitute.” The application of color to pasteurized egg whites has generally not been conducted under FSIS inspection.
The processing of egg substitutes is also similar to that of other egg products, and the contamination risks associated with these types of products are the same. Egg products and egg substitutes are manufactured using the same process, though egg substitutes processed in an FDA facility do not have to re-pasteurized; where CCPs exist in the manufacture of egg products, they exist in the production of egg substitutes,
Because the risks associated with egg substitutes are the same as those associated with egg products, and because the reprocessing step presents a point in the process where contamination of egg substitutes might occur, under the EPIA, the processing of egg substitutes needs to take place within the framework of HACCP and Sanitation SOP preventive control measures. Furthermore, the addition of color and other ingredients does not materially change the products such that the jurisdiction over the inspection of the products should be different than for other egg products. In an effort to be more transparent about the roles and responsibilities of FSIS and FDA regarding eggs, and after consulting with FDA, FSIS is proposing to assert jurisdiction over egg substitutes.
In addition, FSIS is proposing to assert jurisdiction over freeze-dried egg products. Under 9 CFR 590.5, these are exempted from being egg products. However, FSIS tentatively finds this categorization to be incorrect. Freeze-dried egg products are amenable under the EPIA because they consist of a pasteurized egg product that is flash frozen and placed in a vacuum chamber where ice particles are removed. The food safety risks associated with freezing the product and contemplated by the EPIA are the same whether the process takes place in an FSIS-inspected egg products plant or an FDA-inspected facility. As a result, if this proposal is adopted, freeze-dried egg products will no longer be exempt and will be subject to FSIS's jurisdiction. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to amend the list of products exempted as not being egg products in 9 CFR 590.5 to eliminate freeze-dried products and egg substitutes.
Under proposed 9 CFR 591.1(a), all official plants will have to comply with the requirements contained in 9 CFR parts 416, Sanitation, and 417, HACCP Systems. For the purposes of these parts, as well as 9 CFR part 500, Rules of Practice, an “official establishment” or “establishment” will include a plant that processes egg products (proposed 9 CFR 591.1(b)).
FSIS is proposing to adopt HACCP as the organizing structure for its egg products food safety program because HACCP has been proven to be an optimal framework for building science-based process control into food production systems to prevent food safety hazards. Under proposed 9 CFR 590.149(b) and 591.1(a), official plants will be required to comply with 9 CFR part 417, the Agency's regulation on HACCP, as a condition of receiving inspection.
HACCP is a flexible system that will enable official plants to tailor their control systems to the needs of their particular plants and processes. Under proposed 9 CFR 590.149(b)and 591.1 and 9 CFR part 417, each egg products plant will be required to develop and implement a HACCP system for food safety that is designed to prevent, eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level the occurrence of biological, chemical, and physical hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in the plant's process. Plants will be responsible for developing and implementing HACCP plans that incorporate the controls that are necessary to produce safe egg products. Given the requirements in 9 CFR part 417, FSIS is proposing to amend or eliminate many of the processing and facility requirements contained in 9 CFR 590.500-575.
Under 9 CFR part 417, when developing a HACCP plan (9 CFR 417.2(b)), a plant conducts a hazard analysis to identify and list the biological, chemical, or physical food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in its production process for a particular product and the measures necessary to prevent, eliminate, or reduce the occurrence of those hazards to an acceptable level. The plant then identifies the points in each of its processes at which control is necessary to achieve this goal (9 CFR 417.2(c)(2)). These points are called “critical control points” (CCPs). The plant would have to establish critical limits for the preventive measures associated with each identified CCP. A critical limit is the maximum or minimum value to which a hazard must be controlled at a CCP to prevent, eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level the occurrence of the identified food safety hazard. Critical limits are most often based on process parameters such as temperature, time, water activity, pH, or humidity.
FSIS is proposing to treat egg products similarly to the way it treats ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry products. FSIS will require that official plants produce egg products to be edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety. Pathogens detected in or on RTE egg products would adulterate those egg products under 21 U.S.C. 1033(a)(1)) because they would contain a poisonous or deleterious substance which may render them injurious to health.
For example, FSIS regards any amount of Lm in an RTE product as a product adulterant (9 CFR 430.4). Because the product is RTE, it is likely to be consumed without any effort to kill the pathogen, and the presence of the pathogen may render the product
FSIS has also addressed shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC) in certain raw beef products (non-intact or intended for non-intact use) in this manner. FSIS considers an acceptable reduction for STEC to be a reduction to an undetectable level (
Under the Agency's verification testing program, egg products are broken into seven product categories—four liquid and three dried. Each month, inspectors collect one egg product sample per process from each plant that produces egg products. Thus, inspectors could sample an egg products plant as many as seven times per month depending on the number of plant production processes occurring during the month. After inspectors collect the samples, FSIS Field Service Laboratories analyze the samples for the presence of Salmonella and Lm using the protocols listed in the Microbiology Laboratory Handbook.
Once a plant has established critical limits for the measures associated with each identified CCP, it will need to monitor the identified CCPs to assess whether the CCP is within the established critical limit (9 CFR 417.2(c)(4)). Monitoring is an integral part of HACCP, and monitoring frequencies must be sufficient to ensure that each CCP is under control. The plant's HACCP plan would also have to include corrective action to be taken when monitoring indicates that there is a deviation from a critical limit at a CCP, because the existence of a HACCP plan does not guarantee that problems will not arise (9 CFR 417.2(c)(5)). For example, corrective action plans must be in place to identify and correct the cause of a deviation and to determine the disposition of potentially adulterated product.
Plants will also have to develop and maintain effective recordkeeping procedures that document the entire HACCP system (9 CFR 417.2(c)(6)). Finally, plants will need to list the verification procedures, and the frequency with which those procedures will be performed, that the plant will use to ensure that the HACCP system is in compliance with the HACCP plan (9 CFR 417.2(c)(7)). Periodic verification will help the plant to ensure that it is operating in accordance with its HACCP plan. The occurrence of unforeseen hazards evidences that the HACCP plan needs to be reassessed. If this proposal is adopted, individuals developing, reassessing, and modifying HACCP plans in accordance with 9 CFR 417.2(b) and 417.3 will have to have successfully completed a course of instruction in the application of the seven HACCP principles to meat, poultry, or egg products processing, including a segment on the development of a HACCP plan for a specific product and on record review (9 CFR 417.7(b)).
Under this proposal, if an egg products plant fails to develop and implement a HACCP plan that complies with proposed 9 CFR 590.149(b) and 591.1 and 9 CFR 417.2, or to operate in accordance with other 9 CFR part 417 requirements, FSIS is likely to file a complaint to withdraw or refuse inspection services, pursuant to 9 CFR 500.6 or 500.7. As with official meat and poultry products establishments, FSIS will verify that the plant's HACCP plans comply with the requirements of proposed 9 CFR 590.149(b) and 591.1 and 9 CFR part 417; that these plans have been validated by the facility; and that plants are producing egg products to be edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety. In other words, these products must be free of detectable pathogens.
If this proposal is adopted, each egg products plant will be required to conduct a hazard analysis to determine the food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur in its production processes and to identify the preventive measures that it needs to take to control those hazards (proposed 9 CFR 590.149(b) and 591.2 and 9 CFR 417.2(a)(1)). The analysis must include a flow chart that describes the steps of the process and that identifies the intended use or consumers of the finished product (9 CFR 417.2(a)(2)).
Contamination with
Under this proposed rule, each egg products plant will be required to develop and implement a HACCP plan covering each product produced whenever the hazard analysis reveals one or more food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur. Note that a single HACCP plan may encompass multiple products within a single processing category (
Once completed, the HACCP plan must be signed and dated by a responsible official, that is, the individual with overall authority on-site or a higher level official of the plant. This signature signifies that the plant accepts and will implement the HACCP plan. The HACCP plan must be signed and dated not only upon initial acceptance by the processor but also upon any modification to the plan and at least annually, as required by 9 CFR 417.4(a)(3) (9 CFR 417.2(d)).
Under this proposed rule, the HACCP plan must identify the corrective actions that the plant will take when responding to a deviation from a critical limit and assign responsibility for taking corrective action. Corrective actions must ensure that no product that is injurious to health or that is otherwise adulterated as a result of the deviation enters commerce; that the cause of the deviation is identified and eliminated; that the CCP will be under control after the corrective action is taken; and that measures to prevent recurrence are established (proposed 9 CFR 590.149(b) and 591.2 and 9 CFR 417.3).
Because pre-established corrective actions may not cover every contingency, and unforeseen hazards or deviations may occur, 9 CFR 417.3(b) provides a series of steps that must be taken in such situations. These steps include segregating and holding affected product and conducting a review to determine the acceptability of the product for distribution, ensuring that any adulterated product or product otherwise injurious to health does not enter commerce, and reassessing HACCP plans to determine whether any modification is needed.
Under this proposed rule, every egg products plant will be required to validate its HACCP plan's adequacy in controlling the food safety hazards identified during the hazard analysis. Once the plant has determined that the HACCP plan is functioning as intended, it will have to validate that the plan is being effectively implemented (proposed 9 CFR 590.149(b) and 591.1 and 9 CFR 417.4(a)).
Upon completion of the hazard analysis and the development of the HACCP plan, the plant will conduct its initial validation, which consists of the activities the plant must perform to determine whether the plan is functioning as intended. During this initial validation, the facility repeatedly tests the adequacy of the CCPs, critical limits, monitoring and recordkeeping procedures, and corrective actions set forth in the HACCP plan. Validation also encompasses reviews of the records, routinely generated by the HACCP system, in the context of other validation activities. Plants may use independent consultants, process authorities, or employees trained in accordance with 9 CFR 417.7 for plan development and validation.
The data used to validate a HACCP plan may be derived from various sources, including the scientific literature, product testing results, experimental research results, scientifically-based regulatory requirements, FSIS compliance guidelines, computer-modeling programs, and data developed by process authorities (a process authority is a person or organization with expert knowledge in the relevant products, process controls, and regulations). However, validation data must include at least 90 days of in-plant data or information reflecting the plant's experience in implementing the HACCP plan during plant operations. These data are needed because validation must demonstrate not only that the HACCP plan is scientifically sound, but also that this particular egg products plant can implement the HACCP plan and make it work.
To ensure that the HACCP plan is functioning as intended on a continual basis, the plant would conduct ongoing verification activities (proposed 9 CFR 590.149 and 591.1 and 9 CFR 417.4(a)(2)). Verification is intended to show that the HACCP system is working effectively on a day-to-day basis, resulting in the production of safe food. Verification is distinct from ongoing plant monitoring, which is designed to provide a record showing that the written HACCP plan is being followed.
Verification includes repeatedly reviewing and evaluating the various components of the HACCP system. Verification activities should provide practical results specific to the operation of the given HACCP plan and could include, but would not be limited to, checking the adequacy of critical limits; reviewing CCP-monitoring records; reviewing monitoring and recordkeeping procedures; calibrating process-monitoring instruments; collecting in-line or finished product samples for biological (
Under this proposed rule, plants will also be required to reassess the adequacy of their HACCP plans at least annually and whenever any changes occur that could affect the hazard analysis or alter the HACCP plan. Examples of such changes include changes in raw materials or the source of raw materials; product formulation; production volume; packaging; or the intended use or consumers of the finished product (proposed 9 CFR 590.149, 591.1, and 591.2, and 9 CFR 417.4(a)(3)). This reassessment must be conducted by an individual who has successfully completed a course of instruction in the application of the seven HACCP principles, including a segment on the development of a HACCP plan for a specific product, for example, liquid egg product, and on record review (9 CFR 417.7(b)).
By periodically monitoring its HACCP plan, a plant can ensure that the plan is continuously effective in controlling and preventing food safety hazards. It also provides a plant the opportunity to apply relevant experiences to improving process controls.
Under this proposed rule, plants will have to maintain records regarding their operations under HACCP. These records include the written hazard analysis and all supporting documentation, the written HACCP plan and all decision-making documents associated with the development of CCPs and critical limits, and documents supporting the monitoring and verification procedures selected and the frequency of those procedures. Records documenting the monitoring of CCPs and critical limits, corrective actions, verification procedures and results, product codes, and product name or identity will also have to be maintained. Each entry on a record maintained under the HACCP plan will have to be made at the time the specific event occurred and include the date and time recorded, and be signed or initialed by the employee making the entry.
Prior to shipping product, the plant will have to review the processing and production records associated with the HACCP plan to ensure that they are complete, all critical limits were met, and, if applicable, that corrective actions were taken (proposed 9 CFR 590.149 and 591.1 and 9 CFR 417.5(c)).
Proper sanitation is an important and integral part of every food process and a fundamental requirement under the law. Insanitary facilities and equipment, and poor food handling and personal hygiene practices among employees, create an environment in which pathogens can flourish. Furthermore, the law is quite clear: Eggs or egg products that have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have been contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health are deemed adulterated (21 U.S.C. 1033(a)(4)). FSIS inspection program personnel are expressly charged with ensuring that product is produced and held under sanitary conditions.
Sanitation SOPs are necessary because they clearly define each plant's responsibility to consistently follow effective sanitation procedures to minimize the risk of direct product contamination and adulteration. This proposal is based on FSIS's determination for meat and poultry plants that effective sanitation is essential for food safety and for the successful implementation of HACCP. FSIS is not aware of any reason why the same determination should not be made for egg products plants.
Well-run plants have effective quality control and sanitation programs, including written Sanitation SOPs. Such programs are based, in large part, on the plants' recognition of the link between the existence of insanitary conditions during the processing and production of egg products and the likelihood that bacteria, including pathogenic bacteria, will contaminate the finished product. Some plants, however, do not have adequate programs and do not consistently maintain good sanitation. In fact, poor sanitation is the most frequently cited problem identified by FSIS inspection program personnel in egg products plants.
If FSIS finalizes this proposal, all official plants will be required to develop, implement, and maintain written Sanitation SOPs, as well as comply with the Sanitation requirements (9 CFR 416.1-6), in accordance with 9 CFR part 416. As a result, FSIS is proposing to amend or replace many of the current sanitary requirements contained in 9 CFR 590.500-575. The plant's Sanitation SOPs will need to describe all procedures the plant conducts daily to prevent direct contamination or adulteration of products (proposed 9 CFR 591.1(a) and 9 CFR 416.12(a)). The Sanitation SOPs will also need to specify the frequency with which each procedure in the Sanitation SOPs is to be performed and identify the plant employees responsible for implementing and maintaining the procedures (9 CFR 416.12(d)). The Sanitation SOPs will have to be signed and dated, upon initiation and any modification, by “the individual with overall authority on-site or a higher level official of the plant.” The signature will signify that the plant will implement and maintain the Sanitation SOPs in accordance with 9 CFR part 416 (proposed 9 CFR 591.1 and 9 CFR 416.12(b)). Official plants will also have to identify their pre-operational sanitation procedures in their written Sanitation SOPs, distinguishing them from sanitation activities to be carried out during operations (proposed 9 CFR 591.1 and 9 CFR 416.12(c)).
Under this proposal, each plant will be required to conduct the pre-operational and operational procedures as specified in the Sanitation SOPs, monitor the conduct of the procedures, and routinely evaluate the effectiveness of the SOPs and modify the Sanitation SOPs as necessary, in light of changes to the facility, personnel, or operations, to ensure that they remain effective in preventing direct product contamination and adulteration (proposed 9 CFR 591.1 and 9 CFR 416.13 and 416.14).
Plants will have to take corrective action when either the plant or FSIS determines that the Sanitation SOPs, or their implementation, may have failed to prevent direct product contamination or adulteration (9 CFR 416.15(a)). Corrective actions include “procedures to ensure appropriate disposition of product(s) that may be contaminated, restore sanitary conditions, and prevent the recurrence of direct contamination or adulteration of product(s), including appropriate reevaluation and modification of the Sanitation SOPs and the procedures specified therein . . .” (proposed 9 CFR 591.1 and 9 CFR 416.15(b)).
If this proposed rule is adopted, plants will have to keep daily records documenting that the sanitation and monitoring procedures listed in the Sanitation SOPs are performed and maintain records documenting any corrective actions taken to prevent direct contamination or adulteration of products, or when the plant determines or FSIS notifies it that its Sanitation SOPs are inadequate (proposed 9 CFR 591.1 and 9 CFR 416.16(a)). Under this proposal, records may be maintained on a computer, provided that plants implement controls to ensure the integrity of the electronic data (9 CFR 416.16(b)). Records could be retained off-site, provided that they are not removed from the plant for at least 48 hours following their completion, and that they can be provided to FSIS personnel within 24 hours of being requested (9 CFR 416.16(c)).
Under the proposed Sanitation SOPs, FSIS inspection program personnel will verify that plant management is conducting its operations in a sanitary environment and manner. Failure to comply with the Sanitation SOPs provides presumptive evidence of insanitation. As is now the case, inspection program personnel will act to prevent a facility from operating under insanitary conditions.
In addition to Sanitation SOP requirements, FSIS is proposing to remove the current sanitation requirements discussed below for egg products plants from its regulations. Some of the existing plant sanitation requirements will no longer be needed in light of the proposed HACCP and Sanitation SOP requirements. Further, some of the existing plant sanitation requirements impede innovation and blur the distinction between plant and inspector responsibilities for maintaining sanitary conditions. Should these regulations become final, they will provide official plants with more flexibility to innovate with regard to facility design, construction, and operations.
The sanitation requirements proposed in this rule will not only provide plants with the flexibility to innovate in facility design, construction, and operations but will also articulate the standards for good sanitation and for food product safety that must be met by egg products processors. All sanitation requirements have the same intent: A plant that processes egg products must operate under sanitary conditions, in a manner that ensures that the product is not adulterated and that does not interfere with FSIS inspection and its enforcement of such standards. However, because the proposed sanitation requirements define the results to be achieved by sanitation, but not the specific means to achieve those results, plants can meet the sanitation requirements in different ways. Regardless of the means by which plants comply with the standards under this proposed rule, the required results will be the same for all egg products plants.
FSIS is proposing to replace most of the current sanitation regulations in 9 CFR 590.500 through 590.560 with the general sanitation requirements set out in 9 CFR 416.1 through 416.6, which the Agency is proposing to incorporate by reference (proposed 9 CFR 591.1(a)). This proposed change will significantly reduce the number of egg and egg products sanitation regulations and consolidate most sanitation requirements for eggs and egg products with those for meat and poultry products.
The current sanitation regulations for eggs and egg products require that plants, including rooms, windows, and floors, be kept clean and reasonably dry, and free from objectionable odors, flies, insects, and rodents. Section 416.1 of 9 CFR, which applies to meat and poultry establishments, provides greater flexibility: “Each official establishment must be operated and maintained in a sanitary manner sufficient to ensure that product is not contaminated, adulterated, or misbranded.” Unlike command-and-control regulations, examples of which are cited below, 9 CFR 416.1 will provide facilities with the maximum possible flexibility to innovate in facility design, construction, and operation.
Examples of current requirements to be replaced by the general standards are: § 590.500(d), which states that materials and equipment not currently needed shall be handled or stored in a manner so as not to constitute a sanitary hazard; § 590.500(e), concerning doors and windows leading to rooms where exposed edible product is handled; § 590.522(a) concerning breaking room operations; and § 590.539(a), concerning the defrosting of frozen egg product in a sanitary manner.
The proposed rule would also provide flexibility to industry in facility design, construction, and operation by the replacement of the following regulations with the general standards in 9 CFR 416.1: § 590.506(c), which requires the installation of an approved exhaust system for the continuous removal directly to the outside of any steam, vapors, odors, or dust in the candling and transfer room; § 590.508(a), which states that candling and transfer rooms and equipment shall be kept clean, free from cobwebs, dust, objectionable odors, and excess packing materials; and § 590.546(b), which requires that the air intake source in albumen flake process drying facilities be free from foul odors, dust, and dirt.
The current egg products plant requirements for facility grounds are unnecessarily prescriptive. For example, 9 CFR 590.500(b) requires that the premises be free from refuse, waste, and other materials and conditions that constitute a source of odors or a harbor for insects, rodents, and other vermin, while § 590.500(g) states that drains and gutters shall be properly installed with approved traps and vents. Several other sections (§§ 590.542(a), 547(a), and 548(a)) require that rooms be kept free of flies, insects, and rodents.
The other prescriptive establishment grounds regulations are 9 CFR 590.500(a) and (c), which require that the plant be free from objectionable odors, dust, and smoke-laden air and state that the buildings shall be of sound construction and kept in good repair to prevent the entrance or harboring of vermin, and § 590.522(a), which states that the breaking room shall be kept in dust-free clean condition and free from flies, insects, and rodents. In addition, 9 CFR 590.522(a) requires that the plant keep the floor clean and reasonably dry during breaking operations and free of egg meat and shells.
The general sanitation requirements in 9 CFR 416.2(a) preserve the intent of these requirements that grounds be maintained to prevent conditions that could lead to the contamination or adulteration of product, and that establishments implement and maintain an integrated pest control program to eliminate the harborage of pests on the grounds and within the plant facilities. This regulation, however, provides the flexibility and leave to innovate that the Agency is proposing to incorporate into the egg product regulations.
The egg products inspection regulations concerning construction of egg products plants are very prescriptive and inflexible. For example, 9 CFR 590.500 prescribes numerous, specific requirements for different areas within an official plant,
Section 416.2(b) of 9 CFR sets out construction sanitation requirements that will allow for increased flexibility in regard to facility operation construction and maintenance if adopted by reference through proposed 9 CFR 591.1. Plants will be able to design facilities and equipment in the manner that they deem best to maintain the required sanitary environment for food production.
In addition to the six prescriptive egg products construction regulations listed above, there are seven more construction requirements that will be replaced by 9 CFR 416.2(b) if this proposal is finalized. They are 9 CFR 590.146(b)(5) and (d), concerning the requirements for floor plans and revised blueprints submitted prior to receiving inspection service or making changes or revisions to an official plant; § 590.500(i), (j), (l), and (o), concerning structure construction materials, maintenance requirements for rooms in which shell eggs or egg products are handled, and toilet and refuse room requirements; § 590.532(a), concerning liquid egg holding tank requirements; § 590.534(a), concerning freezing room requirements; § 590.548(c), which addresses heat treatment room construction requirements; § 590.550, dealing with washing and sanitizing room or area facility requirements; and § 590.560(a) and (b), concerning the health and hygiene of plant personnel and the construction of personnel facilities.
The lighting requirements for breaking rooms in official plants in § 590.520(a) prescribe specific light intensities for all working surfaces in the room and at breaking and inspection stations. For example, all working
The intent of the lighting requirements is to ensure that there is enough light of adequate quality to monitor sanitary conditions and processing operations and to examine product for evidence of adulteration or misbranding. Section 416.2(c) of 9 CFR has codified this intent as a general sanitation requirement, and it will be applicable to plants that process egg products if this proposed rule is finalized. Under 9 CFR 416.2, which requires that lighting be of good quality and of sufficient intensity to ensure that sanitary conditions are maintained, and that product is not adulterated, plants will have the flexibility to determine what light intensities are appropriate to ensure sanitation in different operational contexts. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to remove §§ 590.500(l)(1), 520(a), 548(a), and 550(a) from the egg products inspection regulations.
The egg products inspection regulations addressing ventilation generally require that ventilation provide for a positive flow of outside filtered air through rooms and air of suitable working temperature during operations, and that rooms be kept free from objectionable odors and condensation (
In addition to the regulations discussed above, FSIS is proposing to remove the following regulations from 9 CFR part 590 because they will be replaced by proposed 9 CFR 416.2(d) if this rule is finalized: 9 CFR 590.435(d), which states that containers and packing or packaging materials in which shell eggs are received into the official plant shall be free from odors and materials which could contaminate or adulterate the eggs or egg products; § 590.508(b), requiring the removal of containers for trash and inedible eggs at least once daily and their cleaning and treatment in such a manner as to prevent odors or objectionable conditions in the plant; § 590.530(a), which states that liquid egg storage rooms, including surface coolers and holding tank rooms, shall be kept clean and free from odors and objectionable odors and condensation; and § 590.536(a), concerning the conditions in which freezing rooms are to be kept.
Other regulations to be replaced by 9 CFR 416.2(d) will be: 9 CFR 590.540(d), which states that air drawn into the drier in spray process drying facilities be free from foul odors, dust, and dirt; § 590.546(b), requiring that intake air sources in albumen flake process drying facilities be free from foul odors, dust, and dirt; § 590.549, requiring that dried egg storage be sufficient to adequately handle the production of the plant and be kept clean, dry, and free from objectionable odors; and § 590.560(b), requiring that toilets and dressings be kept clean and that toilet rooms be ventilated to the outside of the building.
The design, installation, and maintenance of an adequate plumbing system are key responsibilities of an egg products plant. Because plumbing systems carry water into plants and convey water, sewage, and other waste from plants, problems with plumbing systems can easily cause product contamination or adulteration. The plumbing sanitation requirements in 9 CFR 416.2(e) set out the essential condition plants must achieve with their plumbing systems: plumbing systems cannot cause adulteration of product and must ensure sanitary operating conditions. Plants otherwise will be allowed to build plumbing systems suitable to the nature and volume of their production. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to eliminate the requirement in § 590.500(g) that drains and gutters with approved traps and vents be installed. The Agency is also proposing to eliminate the prescriptive requirements regarding lavatory accommodations in § 590.500(l) and (m).
The current regulations require any person desiring to process egg products under continuous inspection to submit drawings and specifications before receiving approval of a plant and facilities as an official plant. Information that must be submitted includes how the plant intends to dispose of sewage (§ 590.146(b)(7)). Section 590.504(q) states that all liquid and solid material in the official plant shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the Administrator to prevent product contamination and in accordance with acceptable environmental protection practices.
Section 416.2(f) of 9 CFR, sewage disposal, will replace both of these regulations by requiring that sewage be disposed into a sewage system separate from all other drainage lines or disposed of through other means sufficient to prevent backup of sewage into areas where product is processed, handled, or stored.
The current regulations regarding water supply and reuse in plants require that the water supply be ample, clean, and potable, with adequate pressure and facilities for its distribution throughout the plant or portion thereof utilized for egg processing and handling operations and protected against contamination and pollution (§ 590.500(h)). Section 590.500(h) also requires that the applicant for inspection obtain and furnish to the Administrator, at the Administrator's request, a water report, issued under the authority of a State or municipal health authority, certifying to the potability of the water supply. When ice is used as an emergency refrigerant by being placed directly into the egg meat, § 590.530(f) requires that the source of the ice be certified by the local or State board of health and that the ice be handled in a sanitary manner.
Section 416.2(g)(1) of 9 CFR sets out a transparent water supply performance standard concerning potable water. The water must comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Primary Drinking Water regulations. These EPA regulations are applicable to public water systems. Because these regulations already apply to potable water used by egg products plants, the reference in the sanitation requirements would not constitute a new requirement for these plants. The sanitation requirement also restates the current requirement that plants must make available to FSIS, upon request, State or local certificates attesting to water quality.
The egg products industry uses large quantities of water for processing products and for cleaning. Water and water based (aqueous) solutions are widely used for prewetting, washing, and rinsing eggs, product formulation, and cleaning and sanitizing equipment. Reuse of water solutions, therefore, can offer significant economic advantages.
Section 590.515(a), for example, sets forth the requirements for washing shell
Section 590.552 establishes cleaning and sanitizing requirements for equipment used in egg processing operations that comes in contact with liquid eggs or exposed edible products. While such equipment may be cleaned by any sanitary means, it is preferable to use water to do so. Paragraph (b)(2) requires that shell eggs that have been sanitized and equipment that comes in contact with edible products be rinsed with clean water after sanitizing if other than hypochlorites are used as sanitizing agents.
Section 416.2(g)(2) through (6) of 9 CFR sets forth sanitation requirements for the reuse of water in meat and poultry establishments. If this proposal is adopted, plants will also be able to use reuse water in their operations, as appropriate.
Prior to the implementation of 9 CFR 416.2(g), reuse water was permitted in meat and poultry establishments only under certain circumstances, and any other reuse situation had to be approved by the Agency in advance. However, once technologies were developed that can recondition water for safe and effective reuse in various applications, the Agency recognized that reuse water may be used safely and effectively in certain food processing situations.
Under 9 CFR 416.2(g), reuse water can be treated to render it free of biological, chemical, and physical hazards. Some of the general treatment options used include filtration, chlorination, ozonation, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and heating. Use of these procedures can usually return water to a level of quality appropriate to its intended use. After treatment, however, such water should be tested regularly to ensure continual freedom from biological, chemical, or physical hazards.
Depending upon the original use, the intended use, and the duration of reuse, a wide range of acceptable biological, chemical, or physical contaminant levels are possible in reuse water. The previous degree of exposure or potential exposure to contaminants dictates the appropriate reconditioning treatment and the allowable reuse.
FSIS requires official egg products plants to produce pasteurized, RTE products that are free of pathogens. Therefore, reuse water that is used to chill or cook pasteurized, RTE egg products must be free of fecal coliforms because their presence would indicate that the water was contaminated, possibly with pathogenic organisms (9 CFR 416.2(g)(2)). Other types of contamination will also have to be reduced sufficiently to prevent adulteration of product.
Section 416.2(g)(3) of 9 CFR deals with the use and reuse of water, ice, and solutions used to chill or wash raw product. In response to questions raised at public meetings in Columbus, OH, and Sacramento, CA, on March 30 and April 6, 2000, and Washington, DC, on July 31, 2001, held to obtain comments on FSIS's and FDA's thinking at the time on approaches to ensure egg safety from farm to table, FSIS has tentatively concluded that unprocessed shell eggs,
Paragraph (g)(4) of 9 CFR 416.2 will allow plants that recondition their water through an advanced wastewater treatment facility to use such reconditioned water on raw product, except in product formulation and throughout the plant in edible and inedible production areas. This water is not, however, potable, and it may not have ever contained human waste. Product, facilities, and equipment coming in contact with this water must undergo a separate final rinse with non-reconditioned water that meets the criteria prescribed in 9 CFR 416.2(g)(1). The reuse water described above would most likely be used to wash solid waste from equipment and floors.
Paragraph (g)(5) of 9 CFR 416.2 will permit plants to use any water for any purpose in edible or inedible product areas, provided that it has never contained human waste, has been conditioned to be free of pathogenic organisms, and does not contact edible product. Finally, paragraph (g)(6) states that any water not meeting the conditions of 9 CFR 416.2(g)(1) through (5) may not be used, except in areas where no edible product is handled or prepared, and may not be used in any manner which would allow it to contaminate or adulterate edible product.
Moving the egg products water supply and reuse regulations into 9 CFR 416.2(g) will consolidate them with those for meat and poultry. The proposed sanitation requirements in 9 CFR 416.2(g) are intended to and should account for every allowable water reuse situation in official plants, including those covered by the following egg products inspection regulations, which will be replaced by 9 CFR 416.2(g) if this proposal is finalized: § 590.520(e), which requires adequate and easily accessible hand washing facilities in an official plant; § 590.539(d)(1), which permits frozen eggs packed in metal or plastic containers to be placed in running tap water (70 degrees F or lower) without submersion to speed defrosting; and § 590.552(a) and (b)(2), concerning equipment cleaning and sanitizing requirements.
The current regulations concerning dressing rooms, lavatories, and toilets in egg products plants are highly prescriptive. For example, § 590.500(l)(2) provides a formula that serves as the basis for determining the toilet facilities required in an official plant, the intent being to ensure that plants provide an adequate number of toilet bowls, thus maintaining related sanitary conditions. The sanitation requirement in 9 CFR 416.2(h) gives plants the responsibility and flexibility to determine how many dressing rooms, lavatories, and toilets it needs. Of course, plants will have to meet any applicable State and local codes concerning the number of lavatories and toilets in the workplace.
There are also other requirements for dressing rooms, lavatories, and toilets currently in the egg products regulations (
The egg products inspection regulations concerning equipment and utensils are unduly prescriptive and can deprive official plants of the flexibility to innovate in regard to equipment and utensil sanitation. The equipment and utensil sanitation requirement that FSIS is proposing to adopt for plants not only provides flexibility but also clarifies plant responsibility for selecting and maintaining equipment and utensils in a manner that effectively prevents product contamination or adulteration.
If this proposal is adopted, plants will no longer have to install and use equipment that complies with the applicable 3-A or E-3-A Sanitary Standards and accepted practices currently in effect for such equipment (§ 590.502(b)). Instead, equipment and utensils used for processing or otherwise handling edible product or ingredients will only have to be of such material and construction as to facilitate thorough cleaning and be durable and suitable for its intended use. Plants will need to ensure that product is not contaminated, adulterated, or misbranded during processing, handling, or storage. Equipment and utensils will still need to be maintained in sanitary condition so as not to contaminate or adulterate product. In addition to 9 CFR 590.502(b), FSIS is also proposing to remove the following sections from 9 CFR part 590 because 9 CFR 416.3 will make them redundant:
The egg products inspection regulations require that egg products plants clean food contact surfaces at the start of processing operations, and that they keep equipment and utensils clean and sanitary during all processing operations (9 CFR 590.504(n)). Section 590.522(aa)(3) of 9 CFR states that mechanical egg breaking equipment shall be clean and sanitized prior to use, and during operations the machines shall be cleaned and sanitized approximately every 4 hours or more often if needed to maintain them in a sanitary condition. It also requires that the equipment be cleaned at the end of each shift.
The objective of the food-contact surface cleaning requirements has always been to mitigate biological, chemical, and physical contamination that could adulterate product. The proposed food-contact surface cleaning sanitary operations requirement in 9 CFR 416.4(a) embodies this objective and clarifies plant responsibility for determining how best to achieve it. The advantage of this proposed standard is that it would provide plants with the flexibility to innovate when determining how to mitigate biological, chemical, and physical contamination that could adulterate product. For this reason, therefore, FSIS is proposing to remove the egg products inspection regulations discussed above, as well as following sections, and replace them with the sanitary operations requirement in 9 CFR 416.4(a):
If this proposed rule (proposed 9 CFR 591.1) is adopted, official plants that process egg products will have to keep, in accordance with 9 CFR 416.4(b), non-food-contact surfaces, such as floors and walls, free of any biological contaminants, chemical contaminants, or physical contaminants that could adulterate egg products. FSIS is proposing to remove the following sections and replace them with the sanitary operations requirement in 9 CFR 416.4(b) because this requirement will give plants greater flexibility and responsibility for developing sanitary procedures specific to the nature of their operations:
Section 590.504(h) of 9 CFR requires that FSIS approve detergents, wetting agents, or other similar compounds, among other things, before they can be used within an official plant. Section 590.552(b) of 9 CFR states that sanitizing shall be accomplished by such methods as approved by the Administrator and requires the approval of chemicals and compounds used for sanitizing by the Administrator before use. These requirements are intended to ensure that egg products are not adulterated with chemicals or any injurious substance.
FSIS is proposing to replace 9 CFR 590.504(h) and 552(b) with proposed 9 CFR 591.1 and the single sanitary operations requirement in 9 CFR 416.4(c), which states that cleaning compounds and sanitizing agents must be safe and effective under the conditions of use, and that plants would not be required to obtain prior approval from FSIS. If this proposed rule becomes final, plants that process egg products would be able to use cleaning compounds and sanitizing agents that are safe and effective under the conditions of use. They would have to use, handle, and store them in a manner that would not adulterate product or create insanitary conditions and maintain documentation to support that these compounds and agents are safe and effective. Plants would, however, have to meet the use requirements for the substances promulgated by other regulatory agencies, such as FDA and EPA, who are responsible for ensuring that these substances are safe for their intended uses.
The egg products requirements for operational sanitation (sanitation measures carried out during operations) are spread through a number of regulations. (
These requirements are unnecessarily prescriptive. For example, § 590.515(a)(4) requires an official plant to change wash water approximately every 4 hours or more often if needed to maintain sanitary conditions and at the end of each shift. Section 590.522(s) requires the cleaning and sanitizing of cups, knives, racks, separators, trays, spoons, liquid egg pails, and other breaking equipment every 2
If adopted, the sanitary operations requirement in 9 CFR 416.4(d) will consolidate the concepts in all of these operational sanitation requirements (which are discussed in this preamble and are currently spread throughout §§ 590.500-575) in a single place and remove them from the egg products inspection regulations. Plants will be required to protect egg products from adulteration during processing, handling, storage, loading, and unloading at and during transportation from their premises.
The current egg products inspection regulations mandate specific employee hygiene practices which egg products plants must adopt. For example, plant personnel handling exposed edible product must wash their hands before beginning work and upon returning to work after leaving the work room (§ 590.560(e)). Section 590.560(f) states that expectorating or other unsanitary practices are not permitted in official plants.
The proposed sanitation requirement in 9 CFR 416.5(a) requires that all persons working in contact with product, food-contact surfaces, and product-packaging materials adhere to hygienic practices while on duty to prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions. It would, if adopted, allow plants to develop alternative or innovative means to ensure that employee hygiene practices do not result in product adulteration, without being as prescriptive and restrictive as the current egg products inspection regulations. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to remove § 590.560 and replace it with the proposed sanitation requirement in § 416.5(a).
The requirements regarding employee clothing are prescriptive. For example, § 590.560(d) states that workers coming into contact with liquid or dried eggs, containers, or equipment shall wear clean outer uniforms, while paragraph (h) of that section requires all persons in breaking and packaging rooms to properly wear hair nets or caps. Section 590.560(g) prohibits the use of tobacco in any form or the wearing of jewelry, nail polish, or perfumes in any area where edible products are exposed.
As stated in the previous section, FSIS is proposing to remove § 590.560 and replace it with the sanitation requirement in 9 CFR 416.5(b) and proposed 9 CFR 591.1(a). If the
The sanitation requirement in 9 CFR 416.5(c) is similar to the requirements for employee health in § 590.560(c) to prevent transmission of communicable diseases. FSIS is proposing to remove § 590.560(c) and adopt proposed 9 CFR 591.1 and 416.5(c) for egg products plants.
Retention tags or other devices and methods as may be approved by the Administrator are used for the control and identification of equipment, utensils, rooms, or compartments in official plants that are found to be unclean or otherwise in violation of the egg products inspection regulations (§ 590.426). This requirement is similar to the sanitation requirement articulated in 9 CFR 416.6, which requires the attachment of a “U.S. Rejected” tag to any equipment, utensil, room, or compartment at an official establishment that is insanitary, or the use of which could cause the adulteration of product. Both regulations prohibit the use of tagged equipment, utensils, rooms, or compartments until they have been made acceptable and require the removal of tags by program employees. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to replace § 590.426 with 9 CFR 416.5(c) and proposed 9 CFR 591.1. This proposed sanitation requirement for plants that process egg products would serve to provide consistency between the egg products requirements and the meat and poultry requirements.
To meet the sanitation requirements proposed in this document, egg products plants may develop and employ sanitation or processing procedures customized to the nature and volume of their production. However, FSIS has developed a Sanitation Performance Standards Compliance Guide (Compliance Guide) that presents or references methods already proven to be effective in maintaining sanitary conditions in meat and poultry products establishments, which is posted on the Agency's web page:
Plants that follow the recommendations in the Compliance Guide could be reasonably certain that they will be meeting the sanitation requirements. They would need to be mindful, however, that each processing environment is unique, and that in some cases, the methods presented in the Compliance Guide might require validating the adequacy to ensure sanitary conditions or to prevent the adulteration of egg products.
21 U.S.C. 1036(a) requires that egg products inspected at an official plant and found to be not adulterated be pasteurized before they leave the official plant, except as otherwise permitted by the regulations of the Secretary. Any detectable pathogen would adulterate egg products under 21 U.S.C. 1033(a)(1) because it would contain a poisonous or deleterious substance which may render them injurious to health. Pasteurized egg products are ready-to-eat; that is, they have been prepared so that they can be consumed as is, without any additional cooking.
In 2005, FSIS undertook a quantitative microbial risk assessment to assist Agency risk managers in evaluating possible pasteurization performance standards for reducing the likelihood of
Meat and poultry establishments produce the vast majority of their RTE products without needing to meet FSIS-specified time and temperature combinations or lethality performance standards codified in the regulations. The only FSIS regulations that include specific times and temperatures for ready-to-eat products are for cooked uncured meat patties, which must meet or exceed the times and temperatures listed in 9 CFR 318.23, and for pork, and products containing pork, which must meet or exceed the times and temperatures listed in 9 CFR 318.10. Cooked beef and poultry products must meet the lethality performance standards listed in 9 CFR 318.17 and 381.150. FSIS previously removed prescriptive time and temperature requirements for other ready-to-eat meat and poultry products from the meat and poultry regulations. Such prescriptive time and temperature requirements are not necessary because under the statutes, establishments need to produce ready-to-eat products (including egg products) so that no detectable pathogens exist in the final products.
Therefore, FSIS is proposing to amend the egg products inspection regulations by removing the prescriptive regulations on the pasteurization of egg products (9 CFR 590.570 and .575). If this proposed rule is finalized, 9 CFR 590.570 would be replaced by a new regulation specifying that egg products are ready-to-eat and do not require additional steps to ensure food safety, consistent with the definition of “ready-to-eat” product in 9 CFR 430. Egg products must be produced such that the finished product is free of detectable pathogens. In addition, egg products would not be required to bear a safe-handling instruction or other labeling that directs that the product must be cooked or otherwise treated for safety.
The current requirements for egg products mandate step-by-step
Plants that choose not to develop new or modified procedures will be able to continue to follow a set of pasteurization time and temperature combinations for products that have been validated as achieving the intended pathogen reduction, such as those in the current regulations. FSIS has developed a draft compliance guideline document that includes these procedures. The draft guideline document can be found at:
The pasteurization time and temperature compliance guidelines specifically will assist small and very small businesses in identifying validated procedures. The materials will be posted on the Agency's website.
As discussed previously, egg products inspected at an official plant and found to be not adulterated must be pasteurized before they leave the official plant, except as otherwise permitted by the regulations of the Secretary. They must also bear the official inspection legend and official plant number of the plant where the products were processed.
9 CFR 590.504(o) requires that egg products be pasteurized in accordance with the egg products inspection regulations before being released into consuming channels, while paragraph (o)(1) requires that they be sampled and tested for the presence of
While FSIS does not require final product testing for
While 9 CFR 590.504(o) states that egg products must be pasteurized before being released into consuming channels, 9 CFR 590.504(d) does permit inspection program personnel to allow egg products to be moved from an official plant before the plant receives laboratory results for
FSIS allows meat and poultry establishments to move product to locations other than the production facility prior to the receipt of FSIS test results so long as the establishment maintains control of the product. It also permits them to package and label products sampled and tested for adulterants with the mark of inspection pending negative test results, provided those products do not enter commerce,
The egg products regulations are the same. Egg products plants may move product pending test results only under circumstances that will ensure the return of the product to the plant for reprocessing, or under such other conditions as the Administrator may determine to ensure compliance with part 590. FSIS's practice of allowing egg products to be moved pending receipt of results of tests done by FSIS or the plant is codified in 9 CFR 590.504(d).
Failure of an egg products plant to hold or maintain control of product pending Agency or plant test results endangers public health. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to revise paragraph (e) to 9 CFR 590.504 to make clear that egg products plants that move product that has been sampled by the Agency or the plant before receiving test results must maintain control of the products represented by the sample pending the test results.
The Agency is not requiring the use of any particular control measures to ensure that product is not used or distributed for sale before test results are known. Instead, egg products plants may continue to use, or develop, their own new, effective methods of control.
Shell eggs that are subjected to ionizing radiation may be used in the production of egg products because when applied at sufficient doses, irradiation can be a means of destroying disease-producing bacteria in food and result in a pasteurized product. Specifically, food irradiation is the process of exposing food to high levels of radiant energy. Forms of radiant energy include: Microwave and infrared radiation that heat food during cooking; visible light or ultraviolet light used to dry food or kill surface microorganisms; and ionizing radiation, resulting from cobalt-60, cesium-137, x-ray machines, or electron accelerators, that penetrates deeply into food, killing insect pests and microorganisms without significantly raising the temperature of the food. Food is most often irradiated commercially to extend shelf life, eliminate insect pests, or reduce pathogenic microorganisms. Food irradiation for these purposes is practiced in many countries, including the United States.
Irradiation is subject to the food additive provisions of the FFDCA. FDA has the primary responsibility for determining whether food additives are safe for particular uses. FDA lists uses of food additives it has concluded are safe in 21 CFR parts 172 through 179. Under section 201(s) of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a source of radiation used to treat food is defined as a food additive. A source of radiation is used to process or treat food such that, analogous to other food processes, its use can affect the characteristics of the food.
In a notice published in the
The petitioner submitted published articles and other study reports containing data and information related to eggs and other kinds of food in the areas of radiation chemistry, nutrition, toxicology, and microbiology. FDA considered the data and studies submitted in the petition, as well as other information in its files relevant to the safety and nutritional adequacy of eggs treated with ionizing radiation.
Based on the totality of evidence from all evaluated data and studies, FDA determined that: (1) The proposed use of irradiation on fresh shell eggs at levels not to exceed 3.0 kGy is safe, (2) the irradiation can achieve its intended technical effect of reducing the numbers of
While the irradiation of fresh shell eggs at the doses approved by FDA will reduce the level of microorganisms in shell eggs (65 FR 45281, July 21, 2000), the irradiation treatment of shell eggs to be processed as liquid egg product will not sufficiently eliminate pathogens of public health concern from this form of egg. As a result, treating shell eggs used to process egg products only with ionizing radiation will not result in a final egg product that is completely pasteurized,
Under proposed 9 CFR 590.590, the irradiation treatment must precede the heat or other lethality treatment because FDA has not approved the use of irradiation on egg products. Irradiated shell eggs or the use of the irradiated contents of fresh shell eggs for inclusion in pasteurized egg products must be reflected in the ingredient statement on the finished product labeling (proposed 9 CFR 590.410(a)(3)).
All official plants will be subject to the requirements put forth in this proposal if it is adopted. FSIS intends to phase in the HACCP requirements in this proposal over a 2-year period after publication of a final rule, both as a means to reduce the impact for small and very small businesses and to ensure that FSIS inspection program personnel are properly trained and equipped with the tools to carry out the new requirements for inspection. FSIS intends to enforce the Sanitation SOP measures and the sanitation requirements one year after publication of a final rule because these regulations should involve less significant changes for the plants, and these regulations provide the plant increased flexibility.
FSIS intends to enforce the requirement that egg products be processed to be edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety on the effective date of the rule. This requirement is consistent with current regulatory and statutory requirements; FSIS tests samples from all egg products for
Under this proposal, FSIS would no longer control design specifications for buildings and equipment. Instead, FSIS would focus its regulatory attention on determining whether an official plant is successfully meeting sanitation requirements. Should this rule become final, plants would be required to ensure that the design of buildings and equipment is appropriate for sanitary food production and for maintaining good sanitary conditions in accordance with broad sanitation principles. In addition, official plants adopting Sanitation SOPs of their own design would identify the elements of good sanitation required to prevent direct product contamination, carry out their Sanitation SOPs on a daily basis, and achieve acceptable sanitation results.
Under 9 CFR 590.910, to export egg products to the United States, foreign countries will have to have a system of inspection that is equivalent to the system in the United States. Should this rule become final, as HACCP and other regulatory provisions are implemented in the American domestic market, foreign countries that export egg products to the United States would be evaluated to ascertain whether their inspection systems provide equivalent food safety protection, including adequate levels of enforcement.
Official plants are responsible for ensuring that labeling used on egg products is truthful and not false or misleading (21 U.S.C. 1036). They are also responsible for ensuring that all labeling complies with the EPIA and the egg products inspection regulations. To ensure that official plants comply with applicable statutory and regulatory labeling requirements, FSIS conducts a prior approval program for labels used on federally-inspected egg products (9 CFR 590.411). Examples of label features that FSIS evaluates include the standardized, common or usual, or descriptive name of the product; an ingredients statement containing the common or usual name of each ingredient listed in descending order of predominance; and handling statements if the product is perishable.
To obtain label approval, egg products plants must submit sketch labels to FSIS before they print the labels, containers, or packaging materials that bear official identification (9 CFR 590.411(a)). The information submitted is evaluated by the FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Staff (LPDS) for conformance with the EPIA and the regulations adopted under it.
Before July 1996, FSIS conducted a prior approval program for meat and poultry labels used on federally-inspected meat and poultry products. As with egg products, the meat and poultry prior approval program was intended to ensure that the labels applied to those products complied with the labeling and standards requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and their implementing regulations.
Effective July 1, 1996, FSIS modified its prior label approval program for meat and poultry products by eliminating the need for submitting final labels to the Agency. The Agency changed the previous program by requiring the submission of only sketch labels (
On November 7, 2013, FSIS published a final rule that amended the meat and poultry products inspection regulations to expand the circumstances under which the labels of meat and poultry products would be deemed to be generically approved by the Agency. Effective January 6, 2014, FSIS regulations only require four categories of meat and poultry product labels to be submitted to LPDS for approval, as described in 9 CFR 412.1. FSIS requires the submission of labels: (1) Intended for temporary approval; (2) for products produced under religious exemption; (3) for products for export with labeling deviations; and (4) with special statements and claims as described in § 412.1(c). All labels that do not fit into one of the four categories are eligible for generic approval.
As part of its effort to make the egg products inspection regulations as consistent as possible with the Agency's meat and poultry products regulations, FSIS is proposing to modify the prior label approval program for egg products labeling. If finalized, the program will be consistent with the prior label approval system that is in place for meat and poultry products, including the regulations that permit generically approved labeling. Under this system, only labeling that meets the criteria described in 9 CFR 412.1 will have to be submitted to FSIS for evaluation and approval.
Therefore, FSIS is proposing to revise 9 CFR 590.411 to require all official plants, including those certified under a foreign inspection system in accordance with 9 CFR 590.910, to comply with the requirements contained in 9 CFR 412.1. As a result, egg products plants will have to submit only four categories of product labels to FSIS for approval, including labels: (1) Intended for temporary approval; (2) for products produced under religious exemption; (3) for products for export with labeling deviations; and (4) with special statements and claims as described in 9 CFR 412.1(c).
In addition, FSIS is proposing to revise 9 CFR 590.412 to require that all official plants, including those certified under a foreign inspection system in accordance with § 590.910, comply with the requirements in 9 CFR 412.2. Under this section, egg products plants would be authorized to use generically approved labels and thus would be free to use such labels without submitting them to the Agency for approval, provided the label displays all of the required mandatory features in a prominent manner and is not otherwise false or misleading in any particular.
As with meat and poultry products, FSIS would select samples of generically approved labels from the records maintained by official plants and plants certified under foreign inspection systems to determine compliance with label requirements (9 CFR 412.2(a)(2)). If the Agency finds that an official plant is using a false or misleading label, it would institute the proceedings prescribed in 9 CFR 500.8 to revoke the approval for the label.
Current 9 CFR 590.50 requires shell eggs that are packed into containers destined for the ultimate consumer to be labeled to state that refrigeration is required. However, on December 5, 2000, FDA amended 21 CFR part 101 to require that all shell eggs bear a safe handling statement. This statement, which is intended to inform consumers that there may be a risk associated with the consumption of eggs, and of the ways that they can properly handle and prepare eggs in order to reduce such risks, specifically instructs consumers to keep eggs refrigerated (21 CFR 101.17). As a result, FSIS's labeling requirement essentially duplicates FDA's, which became effective on September 4, 2001. Since it is FSIS's intention not to unnecessarily burden any parties with its regulatory requirements, FSIS is proposing to state in its regulations that shell eggs packed into containers destined for the ultimate consumer must be labeled in accordance with 21 CFR 101.17(h).
Meat and poultry products that require special handling to maintain their wholesome condition are required to bear handling statements. To ensure that the egg products inspection regulations will be as consistent as possible with the Agency's meat and poultry products regulations, FSIS is proposing a similar requirement for certain egg products, 9 CFR 590.410(a). Under this proposal, packaged egg products that require special handling to maintain their wholesome condition would have to bear the statement “Keep Refrigerated,” “Keep Frozen,” “Perishable Keep Under Refrigeration,” or a similar statement. This statement would have to be prominently displayed on the principal display panel. Similarly, egg products that are distributed frozen and thawed before or during display for sale at retail would have to bear the statement “Keep Frozen” on the shipping container. Consumer-sized containers for such egg products would have to bear the statement “Previously Handled Frozen for Your Protection, Refreeze or Keep Refrigerated.”
Under the EPIA, FSIS ensures that egg products are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. FSIS has broad authority to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of the EPIA, including the authority to prescribe terms and conditions under which inspection will be provided and maintained (21 U.S.C. 1035(b) and 1043).
Currently, when FSIS refuses to inaugurate inspection in a plant, seeks to withdraw inspection, or refuses to approve egg products markings, labels, or containers, the Agency initiates an administrative action under 9 CFR 590.160. FSIS is proposing to replace 9 CFR 590.160(a)-(c) and (f)(1) with the supplemental rules of practice contained in 9 CFR part 500. These supplemental rules already apply to meat and poultry products establishments. Should this proposed rule become final, 9 CFR part 500, Rules of Practice, would apply to egg products plants, as an official establishment or establishment would include an official plant under proposed 9 CFR 591.1(b).
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 500.2(c) to add 9 CFR 590.310 to the list of regulatory citations under which an establishment
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 500.5(a)(5) and (c) to add 9 CFR 590.310 to the list of regulatory citations under which it must advise an establishment that it may appeal a withholding action or suspension, and under which an establishment may appeal a withholding action or suspension. FSIS is also proposing to amend 9 CFR 500.6 by adding section 18 of the EPIA (21 U.S.C. 1047) to the statutory citations under which the FSIS Administrator may file a complaint to withdraw a grant of Federal inspection because a recipient of inspection, or anyone responsibly connected to the recipient, is unfit to engage in any business requiring inspection.
FSIS is proposing to amend paragraphs (a)(3) and (5) of 9 CFR 500.7 to permit the FSIS Administrator to refuse to grant Federal inspection because an applicant has not demonstrated that adequate sanitary conditions exist in the establishment as required by the egg products inspection regulations, or because the applicant is unfit to engage in any business requiring inspection as specified in 21 U.S.C. 1047. FSIS is also proposing to amend 9 CFR 500.8(a) to allow FSIS to rescind or refuse approval of false or misleading marks, labels, or sizes or forms of any container for use with any egg product under sections 7 or 14 of the EPIA (21 U.S.C. 1036 and 1043). If this proposal is adopted, 9 CFR 500.8(c) will provide for an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Practice, 7 CFR subtitle A, part 1, subpart H, if FSIS rescinds or refuses approval of false or misleading marks, labels, or sizes or forms of any container for use with any egg product.
Should this rule become final, FSIS would take a withholding action or impose a suspension without providing the plant prior notification because: (1) The official plant does not have a HACCP plan as specified in 9 CFR 417.2; (2) the official plant does not have Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures as specified in accordance with 9 CFR 416.11 and 416.12; or (3) the official plant does not maintain sanitary conditions (9 CFR 500.3(a)). FSIS would also take these actions when facilities apply for a grant of inspection and the applicant or recipient, or anyone responsibly connected with the applicant or recipient, is unfit to engage in business because of prior criminal convictions, or when plant personnel assault, intimidate, or interfere with Federal inspection service (21 U.S.C. 1047).
The proposed rules of practice will ensure that enforcement procedures are fair; identify situations that may lead FSIS to take enforcement action that may include refusing to apply or withholding the marks of inspection from product or suspending or withdrawing inspection from facilities; provide an opportunity for official plants to address and correct problems before the Agency files a formal administrative complaint to suspend or withdraw inspection; establish the procedures FSIS will follow in taking such actions; and consolidate the rules of practice applicable to official plants with those applicable to meat and poultry products establishments.
The egg products inspection regulations require that official egg products plants applying for inspection submit to FSIS multiple sets of drawings of and specifications for the facilities for approval before inspection can be granted (§ 590.146). The regulations require plans to be submitted to the Agency for approval before any remodeling of facilities, and they require that prior approval by FSIS be obtained for equipment and utensils proposed for use in preparing edible product or product ingredients in official plants (§§ 590.146(d), 590.502, 590.504).
The prior-approval process is a feature of the traditional “command-and-control” regulatory approach. While prior approval provides assurance that equipment, facilities, and processes, as designed, meet certain requirements that are intended to ensure food safety or quality, it also reflects the emphasis of the current egg products inspection system on dictating the way in which official plants maintain sanitation and produce safe food. This feature of the current system is inconsistent with FSIS's view of the appropriate allocation of responsibility between the Agency and official plants. It is an obstacle and too often a deterrent to innovation by official plants seeking to improve operations, and it contributes to unproductive use of FSIS resources both in managing the approval system and policing official plants' compliance with approved facility and equipment specifications.
Experience has shown that FSIS prior approvals are of limited value in ensuring good sanitation. They are limited in both scope, in that they deal only with official plant facilities as presented in drawings, and time, in that they are given once, on the condition that official plants will maintain a sanitary operating environment after their facilities are approved. Ultimately, an official plant's implementation of good Sanitation SOPs on a continuing basis is more critical than the actual design of a facility. Plant-operated sanitation procedures will achieve, without prior approval, the same objectives as the FSIS prior approvals, thereby rendering the prior approval procedures unnecessary. Thus, under HACCP-based inspection, the FSIS prior approvals could no longer be considered an efficient and cost-effective means to achieve sanitation objectives.
Under this proposal, although there will no longer be a requirement for an official plant to submit facility drawings and specifications when applying for a grant of inspection, FSIS will continue to use a specific process to determine whether to grant inspection. This process will still include an on-site review, or “walk-through,” of the plant's facilities by FSIS inspection program personnel as part of the pre-decisional review of the facility's capability to produce complying product. However, the decision-making process will no longer include the review and prior approval of facility blueprints and specifications by the Agency. The on-site review will not involve matching items on the blueprints with the actual facilities represented. Instead, the focus of the review will be on the extent to which the facility is able to maintain a sanitary environment for food production and not impede government inspection.
Prior approval by FSIS of equipment and utensils proposed for use in preparing edible egg products or product ingredients will also be eliminated under this proposal. FSIS's one-time approval does not address daily operational issues such as proper maintenance and adjustment of equipment to prevent product contamination. Such issues are covered by the requirement in 9 CFR 416.3 that equipment and utensils be of such material and construction that they can be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized, as well as by other general sanitation requirements.
While facilities will be required to meet the general sanitation requirements prescribed in the regulations, they will have the flexibility to determine the specific steps to be taken to comply with those requirements. Facilities will be able to use equipment based on their own evaluation of their ability to utilize the equipment in a sanitary way.
In its inspection activities, FSIS will verify that plant equipment meets those general standards. FSIS inspection program personnel will act if they find that the equipment that a facility is using creates an insanitary condition that may render product injurious to health.
FSIS is proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation and inspection of foreign eggs and egg products to align them more closely with the regulations governing the importation of foreign meat and poultry products. Historically, significant
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 590 by adding a new subpart B, Imports (9 CFR 590.900
FSIS is proposing to add a new 9 CFR 590.901 to 9 CFR part 590 to establish the identity of inspected and passed imported egg products as domestic products. In so doing, the Agency seeks to ensure that imported egg products that bear the mark of inspection may be combined with inspected and passed domestic products for purposes of further processing or sale in domestic commerce.
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.910 to establish the process and criteria that the Agency will follow to evaluate the equivalence of the inspection programs of foreign countries interested in gaining eligibility to export egg products to the United States. This section also delineates the manner in which foreign governments will be required to maintain the equivalence of their egg products inspection programs, including their certification of eligible establishments, separation of certified from uncertified establishments, and audits to verify the on-going equivalence of food safety and HACCP controls in certified establishments. FSIS is also proposing to prescribe the manner in which foreign governments are to certify eligible establishments to FSIS. Finally, proposed 9 CFR 590.910 includes provisions for the public notification of determinations of equivalence made by FSIS of foreign egg products inspection programs.
FSIS is addressing those circumstances in which a shipment of imported egg products may be rejected for container defects, but are otherwise found to be acceptable, by proposing to add a new paragraph (d) to 9 CFR 590.945 to identify the conditions under which imported egg products consignments with damaged containers may be reoffered for inspection.
For the handling of imported egg products, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.930 to require official import inspection establishments that re-inspect egg products to meet the sanitation requirements in 9 CFR part 416. The sanitation requirements in 9 CFR part 416 address conditions within establishments, such as facility and equipment sanitation, employee hygiene, and the development and implementation of sanitation standard operating procedures and associated recordkeeping requirements.
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.940 to establish official inspection marks for imported egg products. Current regulations require only that egg products found to be acceptable for importation be properly labeled and bear the inspection mark of the country of origin. FSIS is proposing that imported egg products bear the same mark of inspection that is applied to imported meat and poultry products. Additionally, this section outlines a procedure for the pre-stamping of official marks of inspection on product containers prior to the completion of an inspection assignment. These changes are intended to help to facilitate the clearance of inspected product during the examination process when the product is not being held pending the receipt of laboratory test results.
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.945 to clarify the procedures for the treatment and handling of imported egg products identified as “U.S. Refused Entry.” Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that if the owner or importer fails to take the required action within the time specified under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the Department will take such actions as may be necessary to effectuate its order to have the product destroyed for human food purposes. The Department shall seek court costs and fees, storage, and proper expenses in the appropriate forum.
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.955 to include shipping or identification marks among the list of required items for the labeling of imported egg products shipping containers. Shipping and identification marks are identifiers included on product container labels to distinguish product contained in a particular shipment from other product shipped elsewhere from the same production lot. Including shipping and identification marks on the shipping container labels facilitates identification of the product in the event of a recall or compliance investigation.
9 CFR 590.956 permits the relabeling of all egg products eligible for importation with an approved label under the supervision of an FSIS inspector at an official egg products plant or other location. Under proposed 9 CFR 590.411(f)(1), if the Administrator has reason to believe that any labeling, including the size or form of any container in use or proposed for use, with respect to egg products is false or misleading in any way, the Administrator may direct that such use be withheld unless the labeling or container is modified so that it will not be false or misleading, or the formulation of the product is altered so that it is not adulterated or would not cause misbranding.
While 9 CFR 590.956 permits the relabeling of all egg products eligible for importation with an approved label, proposed 9 CFR 590.411(f)(1) would permit only those products whose containers, labels, or packaging materials are false or misleading to be modified so that the containers or labels are not adulterated or would not be misbranded. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.956 to permit only those egg products that have been refused entry into the United States solely because of misbranding to be brought in compliance with the labeling requirements of 9 CFR chapter III. An authorized representative of the Secretary will have authority to supervise any such compliance activities.
Under 9 CFR 590.965, egg products that have been inspected and marked by USDA may be returned from foreign countries. They are not considered importations within the meaning of 9 CFR part 590. Because such products are inspected and passed U.S. product, they are handled in the same manner as domestic products. FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 590.965 to permit the re-entry of inspected and passed egg products from foreign countries if they are not adulterated or misbranded at the time of such return. The product may be subject to reinspection in an official plant before it can be released into commerce. Such products would be exempted from further requirements under 9 CFR part 590, and returned shipments must be reported to the Administrator by letter prior to their arrival at the United States port of entry. The proposed language will be
9 CFR 590.960 provides an exemption from foreign export certification and import inspection requirements for imported egg products that are intended for an importer's personal use, display, or laboratory analysis or that are not intended for sale or distribution in domestic commerce. FSIS is proposing to extend the 50 pound exemption for dried egg products to liquid or frozen egg products, which may currently not exceed 30 pounds in weight. This proposed change is consistent with the personal exemption provisions for imported meat and poultry products, which permit any product in a quantity of 50 pounds or less which was purchased by the importer outside of the United States for his/her own consumption to be imported into the United States from any country without compliance with the provisions of chapter III of title 9.
On September 19, 2014, FSIS published a final rule amending 9 CFR 590.915 and 590.920 to provide an electronic alternative to the paper-based import inspection application and the foreign inspection and foreign plant certificate processes (79 FR 56220). It also removed from the regulations the discontinued “streamlined” import inspection procedures for Canadian product. The Agency is reproducing the amended regulatory text in the codified text of this rule for context and clarity. It is not, however, amending that text.
FSIS is proposing to amend the egg and egg products inspection regulations by updating the terminology used to refer to Agency personnel and the definitions of various terms. FSIS is proposing to remove the undesignated paragraphs of 9 CFR 590.5 that define
FSIS is also proposing to remove the definition for the term
Finally, FSIS is proposing to remove the definition for the term “plant.” Under this definition, the term “plant” can refer to an exempted plant,
FSIS is proposing to revise the undesignated paragraphs of 9 CFR 590.5 that define the terms
Because the term
Also in 9 CFR 590.5, FSIS is proposing to replace the term
FSIS is also proposing to amend the definition of
FSIS is also proposing to amend the term
FSIS is proposing to add to 9 CFR 590.5 an undesignated paragraph that defines
FSIS is proposing a 9 CFR 591.1(a) which, by cross-reference, will require that official plants, before receiving Federal inspection, develop written sanitation Standard Operating Procedures, in accordance with 9 CFR part 416, conduct a hazard analysis, and develop and implement a HACCP plan, in accord with 9 CFR part 417. Conditional inspection may be provided for a period not to exceed 90 days, during which period the plant will have to validate its HACCP plan.
FSIS is proposing to amend the following egg products inspection regulations to match the text in the meat and poultry products inspection regulations:
9 CFR 590.118 Identification.
9 CFR 590.120 Financial interest of inspectors.
9 CFR 590.136 Accommodations and equipment to be furnished by facilities for use of program employees in performing service.
9 CFR 590.146 Survey and grant of inspection.
9 CFR 590.310 Appeal inspections.
FSIS is also proposing to eliminate the issuance of appeal certificates (9 CFR 590.360) and the cost of an appeal to a plant (9 CFR 590.370). Under current 9 CFR 590.300 and proposed 9 CFR 590.310, official plants have the right to appeal inspection decisions.
The EPIA requires the continuous inspection of the processing of egg products whenever processing operations are being conducted in each plant processing egg products for commerce (21 U.S.C. 1034(a)). FSIS has interpreted this to require the presence of inspection program personnel at each egg products plant whenever the manufacturing of egg products is being conducted, including breaking eggs or filtering, mixing, blending, pasteurizing, stabilizing, cooling, freezing, drying, or packaging egg products. This level of inspection coverage is similar to that required at meat and poultry slaughter establishments, where FSIS conducts inspection during all slaughter operations. In contrast, at meat and poultry processing establishments, FSIS conducts inspection at least once per shift.
Based on the Agency's experience inspecting egg products plants since 1995, the Agency believes that egg products operations are more similar to meat and poultry processing operations, and especially those that produce ready-to eat products, than they are to meat and poultry slaughter operations, where inspection is required for each meat or poultry carcass. Like ready-to-eat meat and poultry processing operations, the typical egg products processing operation is a streamlined, automated process, with one or more lethality steps to destroy pathogens of concern in the finished product. As a result, FSIS is proposing to change the Agency's interpretation of “continuous inspection” in 21 U.S.C. 1034(a). Therefore, FSIS now intends to require inspection in egg products plants at least once per shift, instead of during all processing operations. FSIS welcomes comment on possible criteria the Agency might use in determining how inspection will be specifically adjusted in egg products plants.
Section 590.100 provides exemptions from continuous inspection under certain circumstances, provided that the conditions for exemption and the provisions of the regulations are met. Paragraph (b) of 9 CFR 590.100 provides an exemption from continuous inspection at any plant where the facilities, sanitation, and operating procedures are the same as required in part 590 for official plants and where the eggs received or used in the manufacture of egg products contain no more restricted eggs than are allowed by the official standards for U.S. Consumer Grade B shell eggs, and the egg products processed at such plant. Plants granted an exemption under 9 CFR 590.100(b) are called “exempted plants.”
Instead of continuous inspection, exempted plants are subject to periodic inspections, provided they have met the facility, operating procedures and practices, and sanitation standards required for official egg products plants as contained in 9 CFR 590.500-590.580. They are also subject to other provisions applicable to official plants, which includes maintaining records which must be made available to duly authorized representatives of the Administrator for review. Product from exempted plants may not bear official identification (9 CFR 590.680(a)). Exempted product labels must bear the statement, “Exempted-E.P.I.A. Registration No. __.” The registration number is that assigned to the exempted plant as provided in 9 CFR 590.650.
The Agency's proposal to no longer require inspection coverage during all processing operations removes the need for this exemption. The circumstances provided by this exemption can be accommodated under FSIS's changed interpretation of “continuous inspection” in 21 U.S.C. 1034(a) and would allow such exempted plants to bear official identification. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to remove the specific exemption from continuous inspection found in 9 CFR 590.100(b), as well as the regulations in 9 CFR 590.600-590.680 authorizing these types of exempted egg products plants. The other exemptions from inspection for certain types of egg products processing, provided at 9 CFR 590.100(e) and (g), would remain, but would be redesignated as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). Paragraph (f), now reserved, would be removed.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, or reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
The proposed rule will enable official plants to increase efficiency from complying with less burdensome regulations. FSIS is proposing that the current “command and control” egg products inspection regulations be changed to more flexible regulatory requirements. Under this proposed rule, egg products plants would be required to develop and maintain HACCP systems. A HACCP system allows greater flexibility for producers to
Furthermore, regulatory action is warranted by the non-negligible public health risks associated with pasteurized egg products. The FSIS 2005 risk assessment estimated 5,500 cases of
Currently, egg products are produced under FSIS jurisdiction by 77 egg products plants. Egg products include liquid, frozen, and dried whole eggs, whites, yolks, and various blends with or without non-egg ingredients. According to the FSIS Public Health Information System (PHIS) Database, we estimate that the egg products industry produced 1.8 billion pounds of dried, frozen, and liquid egg products for distribution in commerce and produced 4 billion pounds of liquid unpasteurized product for further processing in 2014.
A survey by RTI International in 2014, Egg Products Industry Survey,
This proposed rule would require that egg products plants maintain sanitation SOPs equivalent to the specifications of FSIS. Ninety-one percent of egg products plants already conduct sanitation procedures for food contact surfaces either daily or more frequently and document those procedures for sanitation standard operating procedures (Sanitation SOPs).
Egg products production is easily the least labor-intensive process of the industries and products that FSIS regulates. Egg products plants tend to be highly mechanized and staffed with relatively low numbers of employees. Based on the results of a 2014 industry survey,
Table 2 displays plants and processes.
FSIS inspection of egg products plants includes 95 inspection program personnel (IPP), who conduct daily pre-operational sanitation inspections and monitor sanitary conditions of the plant premises, facilities, and equipment continually during operations at every egg products plant in multiple shifts. FSIS IPP are responsible for observing the cleanliness, type, and wholesomeness of raw materials and finished products, the handling of ingredients, pasteurization, packaging, labeling, freezing, storing, and all other operations related to the processing and production of egg products. In the past, FSIS has determined through regulation that, under the EPIA, IPP are required to conduct continuous inspection at egg products plants. This requirement means IPP must be on duty whenever eggs are broken; liquid eggs arrive at the receiving plant; egg products are blended, reconstituted, or reformulated; egg products are pasteurized or packaged; and non-denatured inedible egg products arrive at, or are shipped from, the plant.
Presented here are economic analyses for the breaking of shell eggs, the production of pasteurized liquid egg
Egg products plant personnel compensation (wages and benefits) that plants would need to provide to their employees because of the proposed regulation is derived using Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics wage rates and National Compensation Survey benefits percentages. The wage rate for a Quality Control (QC) manager is estimated to be $51.47 per hour; for Supervisors or QC technicians, $34.26 per hour; and for Production workers, $13.00 per hour.
Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) Systems: The cost estimates for HACCP implementation include costs associated with plan development and reassessment, training, and monitoring and recordkeeping costs. If egg products plants follow current time/temperature regulations, FSIS would accept their approach, and FSIS would not require that plants do a significant amount of analysis in their HACCP plan. Upon completion of the hazard analysis and development of the HACCP plans, plants are required to determine whether their HACCP plans are functioning as intended. During the initial validation period, plants are to test, repeatedly, the adequacy of the CCPs, critical limits, monitoring and recordkeeping procedures, and corrective actions identified in the HACCP plan.
HACCP Plan Development and Reassessment: Egg products plants operate to produce a variety of products using a number of different processing techniques. Under this proposed rule, each plant would be required to evaluate its processes to determine the adequacy of existing written HACCP plans and the number of plans that would need to be created or modified to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. A large number of egg products plants already have HACCP plans for their processes. These plants will be required to validate and reassess their HACCP plans annually, to ensure that their HACCP plans are consistent with the regulations that FSIS is proposing in this document. For plants that currently lack HACCP plans, FSIS estimated the cost of initial plan development and validation and annual reassessment and validation. Under this proposed rule, every egg products plant would be required to reassess the adequacy of the HACCP plan at least annually and whenever any changes occur that could affect the hazard analysis or alter the HACCP plan. Such changes may include, but are not limited to, changes in raw materials, source of raw materials, or product formulation. For the purposes of estimating costs, FSIS simplified the production of egg products into three processes: the breaking of shell eggs, the production of pasteurized liquid egg products (including frozen egg products), and the production of pasteurized dried egg products.
Using these three process definitions and data from PHIS, FSIS categorized plants by process. For reference, Table 2 above displays plants and processes. Using results from the 2014 Egg Products Industry Survey, FSIS applied a distribution, by process, of plants responding affirmatively to having a written HACCP plan to the population of egg products plants.
For plan development and reassessment, FSIS used the Cost of Food Safety Investments
The above analysis does not include costs associated with taking a corrective action when routine monitoring of a CCP detects a deviation from an established critical limit. It is not possible to determine the costs of these corrective actions, but we expect that, for well-designed processes with HACCP, these costs would occur infrequently.
HACCP Training and Personnel: We assume that each egg products plant will employ a QC manager and a QC technician to ensure compliance with the proposed measures. Based on the 2014 Egg Products Industry Survey final report, approximately 7 percent of plants do not employ any HACCP plans.
Although the HACCP system is different than the current system, FSIS believes that in egg products plants, only a portion of production employees, or a minimum number per shift, would actually receive training, given that the duties for most of the production employees will remain very similar or even the same when the plant operates under HACCP. FSIS is seeking comment on its assumed staffing and training cost estimates.
FSIS used initial and recurring annual refresher training cost estimates (updated using the CPI for Urban Consumers from 2014 to 2016 dollars and the assumed benefit factor of two) and the number of hours of training from the Cost of Food Safety Interventions
HACCP Recordkeeping: The proposal requires facilities to record observations when monitoring CCPs and to document any deviations and corrective actions. The rule requires that an employee not involved in recording observations certify such records. Recordkeeping costs include the time it takes to make observations and to record the results of those observations, plus the cost of certifying and maintaining records. The level and extent of recordkeeping for the proposed rule should not change greatly for egg products plants already using HACCP plans. Plants with existing HACCP plans are already documenting CCPs, as well as documenting information for the current regulations. For these plants, there will be a cost savings and reduction in recordkeeping costs, because they are keeping records for both a HACCP system and the current regulations.
FSIS used data from the 2014 Egg Products Industry Survey to estimate how many plants do not have HACCP plans, and the number of plans needed at these plants. FSIS also estimated the number of shifts at those plants.
The numbers of CCPs in egg products plants likely vary considerably across the industry. An FSIS technical expert
Table 7 presents a summary of the total HACCP-related costs as a result of the rule. These figures are annualized over 10 years at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
Plan Development: For the most part, plants already have plans for sanitation insofar as FSIS already requires certain sanitation procedures. FSIS used responses from the 2014 Egg Products Industry Survey
FSIS used cost estimates from the Cost of Food Safety Interventions
Recordkeeping: Under the proposed rule, plants would be required to maintain daily records sufficient to document the implementation and monitoring of sanitation SOPs. FSIS used data from the 2014 Egg Products Industry Survey to estimate the proportion of plants keeping sanitation records that would meet the requirements of the proposed rule consisting of employee task performance and a log for deviations and corrective actions.
For plants that are not keeping adequate sanitation records, FSIS estimated costs of recordkeeping based on the frequency of reported recordkeeping tasks. FSIS assumed that each sanitation recordkeeping task would be performed by a production employee and would take approximately 15 minutes (+/−5 minutes) to complete. A sanitation recordkeeping task would be performed daily, unless the plant reported performing a task more than daily, in which case FSIS assumed there would be one task per shift (an average of 1.7 shifts per plant based on the results of the Industry Survey). The average number of shifts was calculated using question 5.2 of the survey, which asks respondents their total number of production shifts per day.
FSIS further assumed that a QC technician would review records for approximately 10 minutes (+/−5 minutes) once per day. FSIS used the recordkeeping estimates and time assumptions to estimate the cost to industry for Sanitation SOP recordkeeping, displayed in Table 9.
Training Costs: Egg products plants that are implementing new sanitation SOPs and those not in compliance will also need to conduct initial training for employees. Using data from the 2014 Egg Products Industry Survey, FSIS estimated the number of plants that will need to develop new sanitation SOPs (
FSIS included recurring training costs to account for labor separation and the need to train new employees. To estimate these ongoing costs, FSIS used an annual labor turnover rate of 27.9 percent
Table 12 presents a summary of the total sanitation SOPs-related costs due to the rule annualized over 10 years at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
Special Handling Statements on Labels: The proposed egg products rule requires “Keep Refrigerated” or “Keep Frozen” statements for all egg products that require special handling to maintain their wholesome condition. Plants currently include this information on egg products labels; therefore, this new requirement for the industry should not create additional costs.
Costs from Requiring Egg Products Plants to Produce Egg Products That are Edible without Additional Preparation to Achieve Food Safety: The proposed rule requires that egg products plants process egg products that are edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety. FSIS does not anticipate that these plants will need to change their pasteurization practices to meet this requirement and therefore will not incur additional costs, except as a part of their normal operations in regards to complying with HACCP plan verification and monitoring activities. These verification and monitoring activities are discussed above as part of the HACCP costs of this proposed rule for recordkeeping and monitoring. FSIS has developed a Compliance Guideline for Small and Very Small Plants that produce ready-to-eat egg products. This guidance document is designed to help small and very small plants meet the proposed regulatory requirements by providing the best practice recommendations by FSIS, based on the best scientific and practical considerations. FSIS is seeking comment on this guidance document, which is posted on the Agency's web page:
Below, the total industry costs are presented:
Training and Personnel: FSIS employs 95 egg products inspectors that exclusively inspect egg products plants. Some egg products plant inspectors already have HACCP training from past inspection experience in meat and poultry plants. For inspectors without prior experience, FSIS will need to train them in the HACCP system. The long-term objective of the Agency is to establish an inspection system where inspection program personnel would be equally qualified to conduct inspection
The Agency anticipates that it will need to train 51 egg products inspection personnel
Replacement inspectors will be required during periods when egg products plant inspectors are being trained. The Agency's district offices estimate the cost of replacement inspectors to be $2,800 per person
Total Costs: Table 15 provides a summary of the estimated total costs for the industry and Agency. The table includes annualized costs over 10 years at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.
The total annualized cost to the egg products industry of the proposal is $0.002 per pound of aggregate egg products ($4,143,600/1.8 billion pounds) at the 3 percent discount rate. The cost of the proposed rule to the egg products industry is minimal, and we do not expect the costs from this rule to have impact on consumer prices.
The proposed rule will provide firms in the egg products industry greater flexibility and incentives for innovation. Firms derive benefits from opportunities to innovate and employ more flexible production methods over time.
A number of studies in the last few decades have shown important efficiency gains for food production industries after moving into a HACCP system. In a study by Nganje and Mazzocco in 2003,
HACCP systems also enable firms that purchase egg products plant products to reduce costs of raw materials inspection, specification, and inventory.
Benefits from removing current regulations: A large benefit from moving away from the current regulatory framework is the lessening of administrative burdens on plants and plant personnel. With the movement to a HACCP-based system, IPP will change how they inspect egg products plants by ensuring that plants' HACCP systems are functioning as intended rather than inspecting for compliance with current specifications. This change in how inspection is done will allow for improved allocation of resources to more food- safety tasks and sanitary verifications both for the Agency and for egg products plants. It also allows egg product plants to employ resources in a manner that more efficiently produces safe product instead of allocating resources just to comply with FSIS regulations. For instance, instead of sampling product for time and temperature, a plant can design a system in which its HACCP plan specifies sampling products at a more convenient time in the process, allowing for better personnel resource management to improve production efficiency.
Another aspect of the reduced administrative burden is a reduced need for FSIS approval for changes to plant operations that deviate from current regulations. For example, official plants will no longer need to submit facility blueprints and specifications (plant changes) to the Agency when applying for a grant of inspection, nor will they need to obtain prior approval from FSIS for equipment and utensils proposed for use in preparing edible product or product ingredients. The approval process for a waiver to a regulation or for no objection to production changes will also be eliminated if this proposed rule is adopted. These changes provide cost savings to industry and the Agency and are quantified below. It takes industry on average 100 hours to make an industry submission as described above (waiver, plant blueprint, no objection, or equipment use), including additional correspondence with FSIS. The Agency spends an average of 69 hours to review and approve each submission. FSIS is seeking comment on its estimates of the time it takes industry to develop a submission and to respond to FSIS requests in connection with the submission.
FSIS receives on average nine submissions per year from egg products plants. The submission process involves an egg products plant's QC technician providing the initial submission data and follow-up correspondence with Agency personnel. This follow-up correspondence includes responding to FSIS questions with supporting data. The QC technician is paid an hourly wage of $68.52 per hour, which includes a benefit rate of two.
The HACCP plan provision of the proposed rule will also give plants flexibility to design their pasteurization and sampling procedures. Ninety three percent of egg products plants have indicated that their plants conduct microbiological testing in addition to those required by regulation.
Additional Benefits from Generic Labeling: Additional benefits include cost reductions for the Agency and for the egg products plants that submit labels for changes to an existing label or for new label approvals. Currently, an egg products plant must submit a formal application along with a sketch of a product label to FSIS personnel for approval, regardless of the change (including a color or size change to a label). If the proposed rule is finalized,
The number of egg products labels submitted in 2015 was approximately 520, and in 2016, the number rose to 708 labels. FSIS estimates that approximately 50 percent of these new labels would qualify for generic label approval each year. Generic approval would reduce the recordkeeping burden at the plant and Agency by about half the current levels. In order to estimate cost savings through the generic labeling process, the number of future label submissions was estimated based on the annual historic increase in submissions. Using the industry cost savings of $25.00 per label from the prior label approval system: Generic Label Approval final rule,
Better Agency Resource Coverage: Because all egg products plant inspectors will now be trained in HACCP and can staff FSIS-regulated establishments other than egg products plants, the Agency will experience an improvement in inspection coverage. In the egg products plants themselves, the Agency can also utilize HACCP trained inspectors as relief inspectors. Currently, egg products inspectors can only work in egg products plants.
Change in Inspector Coverage: Under the proposed rule, FSIS inspectors would no longer provide inspection during all processing operations at each egg products plant, but instead may be provided once per shift. Therefore, under the proposal, inspectors may inspect several plants within a reasonable commuting distance (
In addition to Agency savings, there would be cost savings to industry because there would be a reduction in egg products inspector overtime and holiday hours, which industry pays for, due to patrol assignments.
The Agency will incur costs for the additional travel inspectors will incur on patrol assignments, and the loss of overhead industry paid to the Agency for overtime and holiday hours worked. Agency travel costs include mileage increases for existing patrol assignments and GSA cars for new patrol assignments. Please see table 18 for a summary of total savings from the proposed changes in inspection coverage.
In summary, the benefits from this proposed rule include improvements in product quality, lower transaction costs, plant innovation, and generally lower operational costs. Additionally, the egg products plants will not have to comply with the current “command and control” regulations. By eliminating regulations, administrative burdens will be lessened, including those associated with submitting documentation to FSIS for changes to the plant and plant processes, waivers, and most egg products labels, resulting in cost savings. Industry will also benefit from the reduction in overtime and holiday pay paid for the inspection of egg products plants. Table 19 summarizes the quantified costs and cost savings to industry and the Agency if the proposed rule is implemented. The rule provides a net cost savings of between $1.3 million and $1.4 million annualized over 10 years at the 7 percent and 3 percent rates.
Uncertainty Surrounding Public Health Impacts: Currently, the regulations require specific times and temperatures for egg products pasteurization. If a plant wishes to employ an alternative time and temperature combination, the Agency reviews scientific research or data validating other methods of pasteurization (9 CFR 590.570(b)) and issues a “No Objection” letters (NOL) approving its use. The proposed rule will eliminate the codified time and temperature regulations and will require egg products plants to process egg products in a way that will ensure that the products are free of detectable pathogens. Due to a lack of data, FSIS is currently unable to compare food safety performance in egg products plants operating under the current regulations to those plants operating in a HACCP system under NOLs with differing pasteurization times and temperatures from those prescribed in the current regulations.
Under HACCP, an egg products plant would be required to conduct a hazard analysis to identify and list the biological, chemical, or physical food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in its production process for a particular product and the measures to prevent, eliminate, or reduce the occurrence of those hazards to an acceptable level. The plant would also be required to identify the points in each of its processes at which control is necessary to achieve this goal (9 CFR 417.2(c)(2)). These points are called “critical control points” (CCPs). The plant would have to establish critical limits for the preventive measures associated with each identified CCP. Plants would also be required to validate that their process works as intended (9 CFR 417.4). The HACCP and Sanitation SOP framework will make FSIS inspection more efficient and effective, because the egg products plant would be required to prevent food safety problems rather than react to problems without preventing recurrence.
FSIS has developed a Compliance Guideline for Small and Very Small Plants that produce ready-to-eat egg products. This document updates the current time and temperature regulations based on the best available scientific information.
Gurtler, J.B., Marks, H.M., Jones, D.R, Bailey, R.B, and Bauer, N.E. 2011. Modeling the thermal inactivation kinetics of heat-resistant
Jordan, S.S., Gurtler, J.B., Marks, H.M., Jones, D.R. and Shaw, W.K. 2011. A mathematical model of inactivation kinetics for a four-strain composite of
FSIS will continue to test egg products for
The Agency considered two alternatives designed to achieve the regulatory objective outlined in the Need for the Rule section. However, this proposed rule was chosen as the least burdensome, technically acceptable regulatory approach.
Voluntary HACCP regulatory program: A voluntary HACCP system would be very close to the current system. In the current system, 93 percent of egg products plants already have implemented HACCP systems integrated into their processing. Because many plants have already changed to a HACCP system, the Agency does not foresee any non-HACCP operations voluntarily implementing HACCP that have not already done so. These plants would stay at status quo. Therefore, this regulatory option would not lead to a significant change in current egg products plants processing practices. However, there would be additional costs, such as inspector HACCP training and the costs of inspecting a dual system. Also, under the current regulations, continuous inspection prevents inspectors from working patrol assignments, which would save industry overtime costs and Agency resources. These savings would not be fully realized in a dual system. For the plants not operating under HACCP, there are possible consumer benefit losses as some plants may fail to innovate and might continue to comply with current regulation, passing production costs on to consumers. Therefore, FSIS rejected this alternative.
HACCP for large volume egg products plants: In this alternative, only plants with a large production volume would be required to implement HACCP. This alternative would save Agency HACCP training costs for inspection personnel, who inspect small production plants. Small volume plants would be allowed to stay in a non-HACCP system, lowering industry costs. This alternative would need to have certain volume definitions to distinguish the type of plant considered in the alternative. A difficulty associated with the size definition process is that an egg products plant's volume may change depending on the season or from changes in its source eggs. These changes could affect the classification system, which is based on volume, and could create difficulties in identifying the plants most likely to be designated as large volume. Another drawback to this alternative is the possible costs to the small producer in the long run. Although the low-production egg products plants may save initially on costs by not implementing HACCP, this alternative may hurt the plants' long-run efficiencies and competiveness because they would not be gaining the flexibility to innovate that they would by producing under the HACCP system.
Initial
There are 77 federally-inspected plants. We estimate that at least 12 are large businesses or companies with multiple egg products plants.
This results in an average cost savings to a plant of ($9,200/plant) annualized (7 percent, 10 years). The average revenue for egg products plants is approximately $104.4 million.
Section (1) describes egg products plants' use of Sanitation SOPs. Section (2) outlines the estimates for egg product plants' recordkeeping for Sanitation SOPs. Section (3) describes egg products plants' training for Sanitation SOPs. Section (4) describes the type of product produced by egg products plants and their use of HACCP plans. Section (5) describes the number of egg products plants with HACCP plans. Section (6) estimates the average number of shifts for egg products plants without HACCP plans.
The 2014 Egg Products Industry Survey, conducted and published by RTI International, surveyed approximately 57 egg products plants with questions in regard to plants' use of HACCP plans, Sanitation SOPs, the number of plant personnel, hours of operation and the number of shifts, and current sampling practices. The survey design involved collaboration between FSIS personnel and RTI International. The full-scale data collection took place over a 16-week period from February 17, 2014, to June 9, 2014. The survey included 18 questions. The survey also provided information on production volume, types of product, and production processes. The survey was considered to be a census of the industry because all 77 egg products plants currently regulated by FSIS were contacted and asked to respond. The response rate to the survey was 72 percent. Fifty seven egg products plants completed the survey. Of these, 26 (46 percent) completed the survey via mail and 31 (54 percent) completed the Web survey. FSIS used the survey results to supplement the information that FSIS maintains in the Public Health Information System. The responses to the survey were masked so that individual plants could not be identified, so FSIS applied response distributions to the larger population of egg products plants to approximate baseline industry characteristics. In order to describe the egg products plants, which are under FSIS's jurisdiction, brief discussions of the major findings of the survey have been placed throughout this Executive Order 12866 and 13563 discussion and the regulatory flexibility analysis and footnoted accordingly. Please find the link to the survey here:
FSIS estimated the percentage of plants that train production employees for Sanitation SOPs using question 4.5: During the past year, what types of food safety training did permanent employees of this plant receive? A plant was considered to train production employees if it responded affirmatively to choice b. Sanitation SOPs. 91.2 percent of respondents answered that employees receive Sanitation SOPs training.
FSIS estimated the percentage of plants that currently meet the proposed recordkeeping requirements using survey question 2.2: “Which of the following records that are not required by FSIS does this plant maintain?” A plant was considered to meet both if it answered affirmatively to choices 1—“Employee task performance log verification” and 2—“Deviation and corrective action log.”
FSIS then determined the frequency at which sanitation tasks are performed using question 2.6: “How frequently does this plant conduct sanitation inspections of product contact zones?” If a plant responded affirmatively to choice 1—“More than once per shift,” it was considered to be conducting sanitation tasks at a frequency greater than daily. If it responded affirmatively to choice 2—“Once per shift before shift operations begin,” and operates more than one shift daily (determined with question 5.2), then it was also considered to be conducting sanitation tasks at a frequency greater than daily. If it responded affirmatively to choice 2 and operates a single shift per day, or if it responded affirmatively to choice 3—“Once per day before daily operations begin,” it was considered to be conducting sanitation tasks at a daily frequency. If it answered affirmatively to any other option, it was considered to conduct sanitation tasks less than daily.
FSIS used the training estimates from Section 1 and assumed that any plant which did not provide training for Sanitation SOPs did not have a written plan. Then, FSIS estimated the number of shifts of employees needing training for Sanitation SOPs by averaging the reported number of shifts from question 5.2—“How many production shifts are operated each day at this plant?” Only those plants that do not provide HACCP training were included in the average.
To determine the percentage of plants which have written HACCP plans in place for their respective processes, FSIS used the survey to first determine which respondents produced products corresponding to the three main processes.
For breaking, FSIS considered all plants that responded to question 1.1: “Which statement below describes how this plant receives egg inputs?” and answered affirmatively to choice 1—This plant receives shell eggs only”—or to choice 2—This plant receives both shell eggs and liquid or dried eggs.”
For dried eggs, FSIS considered all plants that responded to question 1.11: “Does this plant produce this egg product form?” and answered affirmatively to choice e—“Dried”—or to choice f—“Blended and dried.”
For liquid eggs, FSIS considered all plants that which responded to question 1.11: “Does this plant produce this egg product form?” and answered affirmatively to choice a—“Liquid”; to choice b—“Blended and liquid”; to choice c—“frozen”; to choice d—“Blended and frozen”; or g—“Extended shelf life liquid”.
Next, for each process, FSIS determined if the respondent had a written HACCP plan using question 2.1: “What production steps are used by this plant, and if used, is the step addressed in a written plan?” Specifically, FSIS considered the plan acceptable if the plant responded affirmatively to option 3—“Used and Addressed in a Written HACCP Plan” for option j—“Breaking shell eggs”; option m—“Drying egg products”; or option n—“Pasteurizing dried egg whites”; and option l—“Pasteurizing liquid eggs for breaking, dried, and liquid processes, respectively.”
Finally, FSIS applied these percentages to PHIS egg products plants production data (
FSIS used the results to question 2.1: “What production steps are used by this plant, and if used, is the step addressed in a written plan?” to determine the percentage of plants with no HACCP plans. Specifically, a plant was considered to have no HACCP plans if it did not respond with option 3—“Used and Addressed in a Written HACCP Plan for any of the following: j. Breaking shell eggs, l. Pasteurizing liquid eggs, m. Drying egg products, or n. Pasteurizing dried egg whites.”
To estimate the number of shifts at plants without any HACCP systems in place, FSIS averaged the responses to question 5.2: “How many production shifts are operated each day at this plant?” for those respondents determined to not have HACCP plans as described in Section 5. This average (1.7 shifts) was then applied to the total number of plants estimated to be without HACCP systems.
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. We have estimated that this proposed rule would yield cost savings. Assuming a 7 percent discount rate and a perpetual time horizon and a starting year of 2018, the proposed rule would yield approximately $1.29 million (2016$) in annualized cost savings. Assessment of the specific costs and cost savings may be found in the preceding economic analysis.
FSIS has reviewed the paperwork and recordkeeping requirements in this proposed rule in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501,
To meet the proposed regulation's sanitation requirements, each processor will develop and maintain a Sanitation SOP. The Sanitation SOP would specify the cleaning and sanitizing procedures for all equipment and facilities involved in the production of every product. As part of the Sanitation SOP, a plant employee will record results of daily sanitation checks at the frequencies stated in the Sanitation SOP.
The burden of documenting the adherence to Sanitation SOPs is based on three factors: Recording, reviewing, and storage. Recording encompasses conducting and inscribing the finding
Under this proposal, the requirements for the implementation of HACCP in official plants will be the same as those being met by meat and poultry products establishments operating under HACCP. The plant will maintain on file the name and a brief resume of the HACCP-trained individuals who participate in the hazard analysis and subsequent development of the HACCP plans. Plants will develop written HACCP plans that include: Identification of hazards reasonably likely to occur in the production process; identification and description of the CCP for each identified hazard; specification of the critical limit which may not be exceeded at the CCP, and, if appropriate, a target limit; description of the monitoring procedure or device to be used; description of the corrective action to be taken if the limit is exceeded; description of the records which would be generated and maintained regarding this CCP; and description of the facility verification activities and the frequency at which they are to be conducted. Critical limits that are currently a part of FSIS regulations must be included. The adequacy of a plant's HACCP plan must be reassessed at least annually and whenever changes occur that could affect the hazard analysis or alter the HACCP plan.
The HACCP records should be reviewed by a plant employee other than the one whom produced the record, before the product is distributed in commerce. If a HACCP-trained individual is on-site, that person should be the reviewer. The reviewer would sign the records. Lastly, HACCP records generated by the processor would be retained on site for at least 1 year.
Under this proposal, official plants will be authorized to use generically approved labels without specific evaluation by LPDS. In addition, frozen and refrigerated egg products will be required to bear labels that say, “Keep Frozen” or “Keep Refrigerated.” Plants already use special handling statements, when appropriate, under general Agency policy governing special handling statements. Therefore, the Agency has already accounted for the labeling paperwork burden.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Room 6065-S, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at the address provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601,
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FSIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Food Safety and Inspection Service will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products, Sanitation.
Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products, Record and recordkeeping requirements, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems.
Administrative practice and procedure, Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products, Rules of practice.
Eggs and egg products, Exports, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS proposes to amend 9 CFR chapter III as follows:
21 U.S.C. 451-470, 601-695, 1031-1056; 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
21 U.S.C. 451-470, 601-695, 1031-1056; 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(b) The individual performing the functions listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall have successfully completed a course of instruction in the application of the seven HACCP principles to meat, poultry, or egg products, including a segment on the development of a HACCP plan for a specific product and on record review.
21 U.S.C. 451-470, 601-695, 1031-1056; 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; (33 U.S.C. 1251
(c) An establishment may appeal a regulatory control action, as provided in §§ 306.5, 381.35, and 590.310 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(1) The establishment produced and shipped adulterated or misbranded product as defined in 21 U.S.C. 453, 21 U.S.C. 602, or 21 U.S.C. 1033;
(7) The establishment did not destroy a condemned meat or poultry carcass, or part or product thereof, or egg product, that has been found to be adulterated and that has not been reprocessed, in accordance with part 314 or part 381, subpart L, or part 590 of this chapter within three days of notification.
(a) * * *
(5) Advise the establishment that it may appeal the action as provided in §§ 306.5, 381.35, and 590.310 of this chapter.
(c) An establishment may appeal the withholding action or suspension, as provided in §§ 306.5, 381.35, and 590.310 of this chapter.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(9) A recipient of inspection or anyone responsibly connected to the recipient is unfit to engage in any business requiring inspection as specified in section 401 of the FMIA, section 18(a) of the PPIA, or section 18 of the EPIA.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) * * *
(3) Has not demonstrated that adequate sanitary conditions exist in the establishment as required by part 308, subpart H of part 381, part 416, or part 590 of this chapter;
(5) Is unfit to engage in any business requiring inspection as specified in section 401 of the FMIA, section 18(a) of the PPIA, or section 18 of the EPIA.
(a) FSIS may rescind or refuse approval of false or misleading marks, labels, or sizes or forms of any container for use with any meat, poultry, or egg product, under section 7 of the FMIA, under section 8 of the PPIA, or under sections 7 or 14 of the EPIA.
(c) If FSIS rescinds or refuses approval of false or misleading marks, labels, or sizes or forms of any container for use with any meat, poultry, or egg product, an opportunity for a hearing will be provided in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Practice, 7 CFR subtitle A, part 1, subpart H.
21 U.S.C. 1031-1056; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c)
* * * The Food Safety and Inspection Service and its officers and employees will not be liable in damages through acts of commission or omission in the administration of this part.
Inspection program personnel will make periodic inspections of business premises, facilities, inventories, operations, transport vehicles, and records of egg handlers, and the records of all persons engaged in the business of transporting, shipping, or receiving any eggs or egg products.
Periodic inspections will be made at any plant processing egg products which are not intended for use as human food of its operations and records to ensure compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part. Egg products not intended for use as human food shall be denatured or decharacterized prior to being offered for sale or transportation unless shipped under seal as authorized in
(a) All shell eggs packed into containers destined for the ultimate consumer must be stored and transported under refrigeration at an ambient temperature of no greater than 45° F (7.2° C) and must bear a safe handling label in accordance with 21 CFR 101.17(h).
(b) Any producer-packer with an annual egg production from a flock of 3,000 or fewer hens is exempt from the temperature and labeling requirements of this section.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) The following are exempt, to the extent prescribed, from the continuous inspection of egg products processing operations in section 5(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(a)), provided the conditions
(1) The processing and sale of egg products by any poultry producer from eggs of his own flock's production when sold directly to a household consumer exclusively for use by the consumer and members of the household and its nonpaying guests and employees.
(2) The processing in non-official plants, including but not limited to bakeries, restaurants, and other food processors, of certain categories of food products which contain eggs or egg products as an ingredient, as well as the sale and possession of such products. Such products must be manufactured from inspected egg products processed in accordance with the regulations in this part and 9 CFR part 591 or from eggs containing no more restricted eggs than are allowed in the official standards for U.S. Consumer Grade B shell eggs.
Each program employee will be furnished with a numbered official badge that will be carried in a proper manner at all times while on duty. This badge will be sufficient identification to entitle the program employee entry at all regular entrances and to all parts of the official plant and premises to which the program employee is assigned.
(a) No program employee will inspect any product in which the employee, the employee's spouse, minor child, partner, organization in which the employee is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee, or any other person with whom the program employee is negotiating or has any arrangements concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest in the product.
(b) All program employees are subject to statutory restrictions with respect to political activities;
(c) Violation of the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section or the provisions of applicable statutes referenced in paragraph (b) of this section will constitute grounds for dismissal.
(d) Program employees are subject to all applicable provisions of law and regulations and instructions of the Department and the Food Safety and Inspection Service concerning employee responsibilities and conduct. The setting forth of certain prohibitions in this part in no way limits the applicability of such general or other regulations or instructions.
(b) The perimeter of each cooler room used to store eggs must be made accessible in order for the Secretary's representatives to determine the ambient temperature under which shell eggs packed into containers destined for the ultimate consumer are stored.
(a)
(b)
The proprietor or operator of each official plant and official import inspection establishment must make application to the Administrator for inspection service unless exempted by § 590.100. The application must be made in writing on forms furnished by the inspection service. In cases of change of name or ownership or change of location, a new application must be made.
An application for inspection service will be regarded as filed only when it has been:
(a) Filled in completely;
(b) Signed by the applicant; and
(c) Received in the appropriate District Office.
(a) Before inspection is granted, FSIS will survey the official plant to determine if the construction and facilities of the plant are in accordance with the regulations in this part. FSIS will grant inspection, subject to 9 CFR 500.7, when these requirements are met and the requirements contained in § 590.149 are met.
(b) FSIS will give notice in writing to each applicant granted inspection and will specify in the notice the official plant, including the limits of the plant's premises, to which the grant pertains.
(a) Before receiving Federal inspection, a plant must have developed written sanitation Standard Operating Procedures, in accordance with part 416 and § 591.1(a)(1) of this chapter.
(b) Before receiving Federal inspection, a plant must conduct a hazard analysis, and develop and implement a HACCP plan, in accord with part 417 and § 591.1(a)(1) of this chapter. Conditional inspection may be provided for a period not to exceed 90 days, during which period the facility must validate its HACCP plan.
(c) Before producing new product for distribution in commerce, a plant must conduct a hazard analysis and develop a HACCP plan applicable to that
(a) Any applicant for inspection at a plant where the operations thereof may result in any discharge into the navigable waters in the United States is required by subsection 401(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1341) of the Clean Water Act as amended (86 Stat. 816, 91 Stat. 1566, 33 U.S.C. 1251
(b) Inspection may be suspended or revoked and plant approval terminated as provided in subsection 401(a)(4) and (5) of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(4) and (5)).
(a) Persons engaged in the transporting, shipping, or receiving of any eggs or egg products in commerce, or holding such articles so received, and all egg handlers, except producer-packers with an annual egg production from a flock of 3,000 hens or fewer, must maintain records documenting, for a period of 2 years, the following, to the extent applicable:
(1) The date of lay, date and time of refrigeration, date of receipt, quantity and quality of eggs purchased or received, and from whom (including a complete address, unless a master list is maintained). Process records documenting that the temperature and labeling requirements in § 590.50(a) have been met must also be kept;
(2) The date of packaging, ambient air temperature surrounding product stored after processing, quantity and quality of eggs delivered or sold, and to whom (including a complete address, unless a master list is maintained);
(3) If a consecutive lot numbering system is not employed to identify individual eggs, containers of eggs, or egg products, record the alternative code system used, in accordance with § 590.411(c)(3);
(4) The date of disposal and quantity of restricted eggs, including inedible egg product or incubator reject product, sold or given away for animal food or other uses or otherwise disposed of, and to whom (including a complete address, unless a master list is maintained);
(5) The individual or composite (running tally) record of restricted egg sales to household consumers. Records should show number of dozens sold on a daily basis. The name and address of the consumer is not required;
(6) The date of production and quantity of egg products delivered or sold, and to whom (including a complete address, unless a master list is maintained);
(7) The date of receipt and quantity of egg products purchased or received, and from whom (including a complete address, unless a master list is maintained);
(8) The production records by categories of eggs such as graded eggs, nest-run eggs, dirties, checks, etc.; bills of sale, inventories, receipts, shipments, shippers, receivers, dates of shipment and receipt, carrier names, etc.
(b) All records required to be maintained by this section must be made available to an authorized representative of the Secretary for official review and copying.
(c) Records of all labeling, along with the product formulation and processing procedures as prescribed in §§ 590.410 through 590.412 of this chapter, must be kept by every person processing, except processors exempted under § 590.100 of this chapter.
Any person receiving inspection service may, if dissatisfied with any decision of an inspector related to any inspection, file an appeal from such decision.
Any appeal from the inspection decision of any program employee must be made to his or her immediate supervisor having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal.
The request for an appeal inspection or review of a program employee's decision may be made orally or in writing. If made orally, written confirmation may be required. The applicant must clearly identify the product involved, the decision being appealed, and the reasons for requesting the appeal.
An appeal inspection or review of a program employee's decision, as requested in § 590.310, must be performed by a program employee of FSIS other than the one who made the initial decision.
An appeal sample will consist of product taken from the original sample containers plus an equal number of containers selected at random. A condition appeal cannot be made unless all originally sampled containers are available.
(a)(1) Packaged egg products that require special handling to maintain their wholesome condition must have the statement “Keep Refrigerated,” “Keep Frozen,” “Perishable Keep Under Refrigeration,” or such similar statement prominently displayed on the principal display panel.
(2) Egg products that are distributed frozen and thawed prior to or during display for sale at retail must bear the statement “Keep Frozen” on the shipping container. Consumer-sized containers for such egg products must bear the statement “Previously Handled Frozen for Your Protection, Refreeze or Keep Refrigerated.”
(3) The labels of packages of egg products produced from shell eggs that have been treated with ionizing radiation must reflect that treatment in the ingredient statement on the finished product labeling.
(b) Containers, portable tanks, and bulk shipments of edible egg products produced in official plants must be labeled in accordance with §§ 590.411 through 590.415 and must bear the official identification shown in Figure 1 of § 590.413.
(c) Bulk shipments of unpasteurized egg products produced in official plants must bear a label containing the words “date of loading,” followed by a suitable space in which the date the container, tanker truck, or portable tank is loaded must be inserted. The label must be conspicuously located, and printed and affixed on material that cannot be detached or effaced due to exposure to weather. Before the truck or tank is removed from the place where it is unloaded, the carrier must remove or obliterate the label. Such shipments must also bear the official identification shown in Figure 2 of § 590.415.
(a) All official plants, including official plants certified under a foreign inspection system in accordance with § 590.910, must comply with the requirements contained in 9 CFR 412.1, except as otherwise provided in this part.
(b) For the purposes of 9 CFR 412.2, an official establishment or establishment certified under a foreign inspection system includes an official plant.
(c) Labels, containers, or packaging materials of egg products must show the following information, as applicable, on the principal display panel (except as otherwise permitted in this part), in accordance with the requirements of this part, or if applicable, 21 CFR 101.17(h):
(1) A statement showing by the common or usual names, if any, of the kinds of ingredients comprising the product. Formulas are to be expressed in terms of a liquid product except for product that is dry-blended. Also, for product to be dried, the label may show the ingredients in order of descending proportions by weight in the dried form. However, the formula submitted must include the percentage of ingredients in both liquid and dried form. If the product is comprised of two or more ingredients, such ingredients must be listed in the order of descending proportions by weight in the form in which the product is to be marketed (sold), except that ingredients in dried product (other than dry blended) may be listed in either liquid or dried form. When water (excluding that used to reconstitute dehydrated ingredients back to their normal composition) is added to a liquid or frozen egg product or to an ingredient of such products (in excess of the normal water content of that ingredient), the total amount of water added, including the water content of any cellulose or vegetable gums used, must be expressed as a percentage of the total product weight in the ingredient statement on the label;
(2) The name, address and zip code of the distributor; qualified by such terms as “distributed by,” or “distributors”;
(3) The lot number or an alternative code indicating the date of production, in accordance with § 590.200(a);
(4) The net content;
(5) An official inspection symbol and the number of the official plant in which the product was processed under inspection as set forth in § 590.413;
(6) Egg products processed from edible eggs of the turkey, duck, goose, or guinea must be clearly and distinctly labeled as to the common or usual name of the product indicating the type of eggs or egg products used in the product,
(d) Liquid or frozen egg products identified as whole eggs and processed in other than natural proportions as broken from the shell must have a total egg solids content of 24.20 percent or greater.
(e) Nutrition information may be included on labels used to identify egg products, providing such labeling complies with the provisions of 21 CFR part 101, promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Since these regulations have different requirements for consumer packaged products than for bulk packaged egg products not for sale or distribution to household consumers, label submission must be accompanied with information indicating whether the label covers consumer packaged or bulk packaged products. Nutrition labeling is required when nutrients, such as proteins, vitamins, and minerals are added to the product, or when a nutritional claim or information is presented on the labeling, except for the following, which are exempt from nutrition labeling requirements:
(1) Egg products shipped in bulk form for use solely in the manufacture of other food and not for distribution to household consumers in such bulk form or containers.
(2) Products containing an added vitamin, mineral, or protein, or for which a nutritional claim is made on the label, or in advertising, which is supplied for institutional food use only, provided that the manufacturer or distributor provides the required nutrition information directly to those institutions.
(3) Any nutrients included in the product solely for technological purposes may be declared solely in the ingredients statement, without complying with nutrition labeling, if the nutrient(s) is otherwise not referred to in labeling or in advertising. All labels showing nutrition information or claims are subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration prior to approval by the Department.
(f)(1) No label, container, or packaging material may contain any statement that is false or misleading. If the Administrator has reason to believe that a statement or formulation shows that an egg product is adulterated or misbranded, or that any labeling, including the size or form of any container in use or proposed for use, with respect to eggs or egg products, is false or misleading in any way, the Administrator may direct that such use be withdrawn unless the labeling or container is modified in such a manner as the Administrator may prescribe so that it will not be false or misleading, or the formulation of the product is altered in such a manner as the Administrator may prescribe so that it is not adulterated or would not cause misbranding.
(2) If the Administrator directs that the use of any label, container, or packaging material be withdrawn because it contains any statement that is false or misleading, an opportunity for a hearing will be provided in accordance with § 500.8(c) of this chapter.
(a) All official plants, including official plants certified under a foreign inspection system in accordance with § 590.910, must comply with the
(b) For the purposes of 9 CFR 412.2, an official establishment or establishment certified under a foreign inspection system includes an official plant.
(a) The shield set forth in Figure 1 of this section containing the letters “USDA” must be the official identification symbol used in connection with egg products to denote that the official plant receives official inspection service. The inspection mark used on containers of edible egg products is set forth in Figure 1 of this section, except that the plant number may be preceded by the letter “G” in lieu of the word plant. The plant number may also be omitted from the official mark if applied on the container's principal display panel or other prominent location and preceded by the letter “G.”
(b) [Reserved]
All unpasteurized egg products shipped from an official plant must be marked with the identification set forth in Figure 2 of this section. Such product must meet all requirements for egg products that are permitted to bear the official inspection mark shown in § 590.413, except for pasteurization, heat treatment, or other method of treatment sufficient to reduce
(a) Inspection shall be made, pursuant to the regulations in this part, of the processing of egg products in each official plant processing egg products for commerce, unless exempted under § 590.100. Inspections, certifications, or specification-type gradings, and other inspections which may be requested by the official plant and are in addition to the normal inspection requirements and functions for the processing, production, or certification for a wholesome egg product under this part, shall be made pursuant to the voluntary egg products inspection regulations (part 592 of this chapter).
(b) Any food manufacturing establishment or institution which uses any eggs that do not meet the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 1044(a)(1) in the preparation of any articles for human food shall be deemed to be a plant processing egg products requiring inspection under the regulations in this part.
(b) Inedible egg products may be brought into an official plant for storage, processing, and reshipment provided it is handled in such a manner that adequate segregation and inventory controls are maintained at all times. The processing of inedible egg products must be done under conditions that will not affect the processing of edible products, such as processing in separate areas or at times when no edible products are being processed. If the same equipment or areas are used to process both inedible and edible eggs, then the equipment and processing areas used to process inedible eggs must be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized prior to processing any edible egg products.
(a)(1) No substance may be used in the processing of egg products, for any purpose, unless its use is authorized under 21 CFR as a direct food additive (part 172), a secondary direct food additive (part 173), an indirect food additive (parts 174-178), a source of radiation (part 179), an interim-listed direct food additive (part 180), a prior-sanctioned substance (part 181), a Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) substance (parts 182 or 184), or by 21 CFR 160.185, or by regulation in this chapter. Substances and ingredients used in the processing of egg products capable of use as human food must be clean, wholesome, and unadulterated.
(2) No substance which is intended to impart color in any egg product may be used unless such use is authorized under 21 CFR as a color additive (parts 73, 74, or 81) or by regulation in this chapter.
(b) Substances permitted for use in egg products under 21 CFR will be permitted for such use under this chapter, subject to declaration requirements in 9 CFR 424.22(c) and 9 CFR 590.411, unless precluded from such use or further restricted in this chapter. Such substances must be safe and effective under conditions of use and not result in the adulteration of product. The Administrator may require, in addition to listing the ingredients, a declaration of the additive and the purpose of its use.
(c) Chemical additives to be used in the processing of egg products must be safe under the conditions of their intended use and in amounts sufficient to accomplish their intended purpose. Chemical additives may not promote deception or cause the product to be otherwise adulterated or unwholesome. Scientific data showing the additive meets the above specified criteria must be maintained and made available to FSIS program employees.
(c) All products containing ova must be labeled in accordance with § 590.411.
(a) Operations involving the processing, storing, and handling of eggs, ingredients, and egg products must be strictly in accordance with clean and sanitary methods and must be conducted as rapidly as practicable.
(b)(1) Egg products are subject to inspection in each official plant processing egg products for commerce.
(2) Any egg products not processed in accordance with the regulations in this part or part 591 or that are not otherwise fit for human food will be removed and segregated.
(c)(1) All loss and inedible eggs or inedible egg products must be placed in a container clearly labeled “inedible” and containing a sufficient amount of denaturant or decharacterant, such as an acceptable FD&C color additive, suspended in the product. Eggs must be crushed and the substance dispersed through the product in amounts sufficient to give the product a distinctive appearance or odor. Inedible product may be held in containers clearly labeled “inedible” which do not contain a denaturant as long as such inedible product is properly packaged, labeled and segregated, and inventory controls are maintained. Such inedible product must be denatured or decharacterized before being shipped from a facility.
(2) Denatured or decharacterized inedible egg products may be shipped from an official plant for industrial use or animal food, provided that it is properly packaged, labeled, and segregated, and inventory controls are maintained.
(d)(1) Egg products must be processed to meet the standard set out in § 590.570.
(2) Unpasteurized egg products may be shipped from an official plant to another official plant only when they are to be pasteurized, heat treated, or treated using other methods of treatment sufficient to reduce
(e) When inspection program personnel do not suspect noncompliance by an official plant with any provisions of this part, they may permit that plant to move egg products that have been sampled and analyzed for
Eggs must be handled in a manner that minimizes sweating prior to breaking or processing.
(a) The eggs must be sorted and classified into the following categories:
(c)(1) When presented for breaking, eggs must have an edible interior quality and the shell must be sound and free of adhering dirt and foreign material. However, checks and eggs with a portion of the shell missing may be used when the shell is free of adhering dirt and foreign material and the shell membranes are not ruptured.
(3) Eggs with meat or blood spots may be used if the spots are removed.
(d) All loss or inedible eggs must be placed in a designated container and handled as required in § 590.504(c). Eggs extensively damaged during breaking, whether not completely cracked open mechanically or in the movement of trays of eligible eggs for hand breaking, must be broken promptly. For the purpose of this section and § 590.522, inedible and loss eggs include crusted yolks, filthy and decomposed eggs, and the following:
(a) All eggs, except as provided in § 590.801, must be clean prior to packaging, breaking, or pasteurizing. If a sanitizer is used, it must be used in accordance with FDA requirements for the intended use.
Eggs used in processed egg products must be broken in a sanitary manner and examined to ensure that the contents are acceptable for human consumption.
Freezing rooms, either on or off the premises, must be capable of solidly freezing, or reducing to a temperature of 10 °F or lower, all liquid egg products.
Egg products must be produced to be edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety and may receive additional preparation for palatability or aesthetic, epicurean, gastronomic, or culinary purposes. Egg products are not required to bear a safe-handling instruction or other labeling that directs that the product must be cooked or otherwise treated for safety.
(a) Official plants must test to determine that the production of egg products is in compliance with the Act and the egg products inspection regulations.
(b) To ensure adequate pasteurization:
(1) Pasteurized liquid, frozen, and dried egg products, and heat treated dried egg whites must be sampled and analyzed for the presence of
(2) Samples must be analyzed for the presence of
(3) Samples must be drawn from the final packaged form.
(c) Results of all partial and completed analyses performed under paragraph (b) of this section must be provided to inspection program personnel promptly upon receipt by the official plant. Positive test results must be provided to inspection program personnel immediately upon receipt by the official plant.
Irradiated shell eggs used to produce pasteurized egg products must be used in conjunction with heat or another lethality treatment to produce a ready-to-eat product. Unless otherwise approved by FDA, the irradiation treatment of the shell eggs must precede the heat or other lethality treatment applied to the egg products.
(a) No person may buy, sell, or transport, or offer to buy or sell, or offer or receive for transportation in any business in commerce any restricted eggs capable of use as human food, except as authorized in §§ 590.100 and 590.720.
(b) No egg handler may possess with the intent to use, or use, any restricted eggs in the preparation of human food, except as provided in §§ 590.100 and 590.720.
(a) Except as exempted in § 590.100, eggs classified as checks, dirts, incubator rejects, inedibles, leakers, or loss must be disposed of by one of the following methods at the point and time of segregation:
(1) Checks and dirts must be labeled in accordance with § 590.800 and shipped to an official plant for segregation and processing. Inedible and loss eggs must not be intermingled in the same container with checks and dirts.
(2) By destruction in a manner that clearly identifies the products as being inedible and not for human consumption, such as crushing and denaturing or decharacterizing in accordance with § 590.504(c). The products must also be identified as “Inedible Egg Product—Not To Be Used As Human Food.”
(3) Processing for industrial use or for animal food. Such products must be
(4) By coloring the shells of loss and inedible eggs with a sufficient amount of FD&C color to give a distinct appearance, or applying a substance that will penetrate the shell and decharacterize the contents of the egg. However, lots of eggs containing significant percentages of eggs having small to medium blood spots or meat spots, but no other types of loss or inedible eggs, may be shipped directly to official plants, provided they are conspicuously labeled with the name and address of the shipper and the wording “Spots—For Processing Only In Official Egg Products Plants.”
(5) Incubator rejects must be broken or crushed and denatured or decharacterized in accordance with § 590.504(c) and labeled as required in §§ 590.840 and 590.860.
(b) Eggs that are packed for the ultimate consumer and have been found to exceed the tolerance for restricted eggs permitted in the official standards for U.S. Consumer Grade B but have not been shipped for retail sale must be identified as required in §§ 590.800 and 590.860 and must be shipped directly or indirectly:
(1) To an official plant for proper segregation and processing; or
(2) Be re-graded so that they comply with the official standards; or
(3) Used as other than human food.
(c) Records must be maintained as provided in § 590.200 to ensure proper disposition.
Nest-run or washed ungraded eggs are exempt from the labeling provisions in § 590.800. However, when such eggs are sold to consumers, they may not exceed the tolerance for restricted eggs for U.S. Consumer Grade B shell eggs.
(a) When used in this subpart, the following terms will be construed to mean:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b) No egg products may be imported into the United States unless they are healthful, wholesome, fit for human food, not adulterated, and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient which renders them unhealthful, unwholesome, unadulterated, or unfit for human food. Such products must also comply with the regulations prescribed in this subpart to ensure that they adhere to the standards provided for in the Act. The provisions of this subpart will apply to these products only if they are capable for use as human food.
(c) Approval for Federal import inspection must be in accordance with §§ 590.140 through 590.149.
(d) Egg products may be imported only if they are processed solely in the countries listed in § 590.910(b).
(a) All egg products, after entry into the United States in compliance with this subpart, will be deemed and treated and, except as provided in §§ 590.935 and 590.960, will be handled and transported as domestic product, and will be subject to the applicable provisions of this part and to the provisions of the Egg Products Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
(b) Imported egg products entered in accordance with this subpart may, subject to the provisions of the regulations, be taken into official plants and be mixed with or added to egg products that are inspected and passed or exempted from inspection in such plants.
(c) Imported egg products that have been inspected and passed under this subpart may be transported in commerce only upon compliance with the applicable regulations.
(a) No containers of restricted eggs other than checks or dirties will be imported into the United States. The shipping containers of such eggs shall be identified with the name, address, and country of origin of the exporter, and the date of pack and the quality of the eggs (
(b) For properly sealed and certified shipments of shell eggs for breaking at an official egg products plant, the containers need not be labeled, provided that the shipment is segregated and controlled upon arrival at the destination breaking plant.
(a)(1) Whenever it is determined by the Administrator that the system of egg products inspection maintained by any foreign country, with respect to plants preparing products in such country for export to the United States, insures compliance of such plants and their products with requirements equivalent to all the inspection, building construction standards, and all other provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part which are applied to official plants in the United States, and their products, and that reliance can be placed upon certificates required under this part from authorities of such foreign country, notice of that fact will be given by including the name of such foreign country in paragraph (b) of this section. Thereafter, products prepared in such plants which are certified and approved in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, will be eligible so far as this part is concerned for importation into the United States from such foreign country after applicable requirements of this part have been met.
(2) The determination of acceptability of a foreign egg products inspection system for purposes of this section must be based on an evaluation of the foreign program in accordance with the following requirements and procedures:
(i) The system must have a program organized and administered by the national government of the foreign country. The system as implemented must provide standards equivalent to those of the Federal system of egg products inspection in the United States with respect to:
(A) Organizational structure and staffing, so as to insure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all plants throughout the system at which products are prepared for export to the United States;
(B) Ultimate control and supervision by the national government over the official activities of all employees or licensees of the system;
(C) The assignment of competent, qualified inspectors;
(D) Authority and responsibility of national inspection officials to enforce the requisite laws and regulations governing egg products inspection and to certify or refuse to certify products intended for export;
(E) Adequate administrative and technical support;
(F) The inspection and residue standards applied to egg products produced in the United States.
(G) Other requirements of adequate inspection service as required by the regulations in this part.
(ii) The legal authority for the system and the regulations thereunder must impose requirements equivalent to those governing the system of egg products inspection organized and maintained in the United States with respect to:
(A) Official controls by the national government over plant construction, building and facilities, and equipment;
(B) Official supervision of the processing of egg products in plants by the assignment of inspectors to plants certified under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section to ensure that adulterated or misbranded product is not prepared for export to the United States;
(C) Any product that is prepared under inspection in a plant must be inspected in such a plant as often as the inspector deems necessary in order to ascertain if the product is unadulterated, wholesome, properly labeled, and fit for human food at the time it leaves the plant. Upon any such inspection, if any product or portion thereof is found to be adulterated, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, such product or portion thereof must be condemned and must receive such treatment as provided in § 590.504(c);
(D) Complete separation of plants certified under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section from plants not certified, and the maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout all certified plants;
(E) Requirements for sanitation at certified plants and for sanitary handling of egg products;
(F) Official controls over condemned material until destroyed or removed and thereafter excluded from the plant;
(G) A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, as set forth in part 417 of this chapter; and
(H) Other matters for which requirements are contained in the Act or regulations in this part.
(iii) Countries desiring to establish eligibility for the importation of egg products into the United States may request a determination of eligibility by presenting copies of the laws and regulations on which the foreign egg products inspection system is based and such other information as the Administrator may require with respect to matters enumerated in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. Determination of eligibility is based on a study of the documents and other information presented and an initial review of the system in operation by a representative of the Department using the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. Maintenance of eligibility of a country for importation of egg products into the United States depends on the results of periodic reviews of the foreign egg products inspection system in operation by a representative of the Department, and the timely submission of such documents and other information related to the conduct of the foreign inspection system, including information required by paragraph (e) of section 20 of the Act, as the Administrator may find pertinent to and necessary for the determinations required by this section of the regulations.
(iv) The foreign inspection system must maintain a program to assure that the requirements referred to in this section, equivalent to those of the Federal system of egg products inspection in the United States, are being met. The program as implemented must provide for the following:
(A) Periodic supervisory visits by a representative of the foreign inspection system to each plant certified in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section to ensure that requirements referred to in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (H) of this section are being met: Provided, that such visits are not required with respect to any plant during a period when the plant is not operating or is not engaged in producing products for exportation to the United States;
(B) Written reports prepared by the representative of the foreign inspection system who has conducted a supervisory visit, documenting his or her findings with respect to the requirements referred to in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (H) of this section, copies of which must be made available to the representative of the Department at the time of that representative's review upon request by that representative to a responsible foreign meat inspection official: Provided, that such reports are not required with respect to any plant during a period when the plant is not operating or is not engaged in producing products for exportation to the United States; and
(C) Random sampling and testing at the point of production, for residues identified by the exporting country's inspection authorities or by this Agency as potential contaminants, in accordance with sampling and
(3) Only those plants that are determined and certified to the Agency by a responsible official of the foreign egg products inspection system as fully meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section are eligible to have their products imported into the United States. Plant eligibility is subject to review by the Agency (including observations of the plants by official program personnel representatives at times prearranged with the foreign egg products inspection system officials). Foreign plants certifications must be renewed annually. Notwithstanding certification by a foreign official, the Administrator may terminate the eligibility of any foreign plant for the importation of its products into the United States if it does not comply with the requirements listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, or if current plant information cannot be obtained. The Administrator will provide reasonable notice to the foreign government of the proposed termination of any foreign plant, unless a delay in terminating its eligibility could result in the importation of adulterated or misbranded product.
(i) For a new plant, or any plant for which information from last year's electronic certification or paper certificate has changed, the certification or certificate must contain: The date; the foreign country; the foreign plant's name, address, and foreign plant number; the foreign official's title and signature (for paper certificates only); the type of operations conducted at the plant (
(ii) If the plant information provided on the preceding year's electronic foreign plant certification or paper certificate, as required in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, has not changed, the certification or certificate must contain: The date, the foreign country, the foreign plant's name, and the foreign official's title and signature (for paper certificates only).
(4) Egg products from foreign countries not listed in paragraph (b) of this section are not eligible for importation into the United States, except as provided by §§ 590.960 and 590.965. The listing of any foreign country under this section may be withdrawn whenever it is determined by the Administrator that the system of egg products inspection maintained by such foreign country does not assure compliance with requirements equivalent to all the inspection, building construction standards, and other requirements of the Act and the regulations in this part as applied to official plants in the United States; or that reliance cannot be placed upon certificates required under this part from authorities of such foreign country; or that, for lack of current information concerning the system of egg products inspection being maintained by such foreign country, such foreign country should be required to reestablish its eligibility for listing.
(b) It has been determined that egg products from the following countries covered by foreign egg products inspection certificates of the country of origin as required by § 590.915 are eligible under the regulations in this part for entry into the United States after inspection and marking as required by the applicable provisions of this part: Canada, The Netherlands.
(a) Except as provided in § 590.960, each consignment imported into the United States must have an electronic foreign inspection certification or a paper foreign inspection certificate issued by an official of the foreign government agency responsible for the inspection and certification of the product.
(b) An official of the foreign government agency must certify that any product described on any official certificate was produced in accordance with the regulatory requirements of § 590.910.
(c) The electronic foreign inspection certification must be in English, be transmitted directly to FSIS before the product's arrival at the official import inspection establishment, and be available to import inspection personnel.
(d) The paper foreign inspection certificate must accompany each consignment; be submitted to import inspection personnel at the official import inspection establishment; be in English; and bear the official seal of the foreign government responsible for the inspection of the product, and the name, title, and signature of the official authorized to issue the inspection certificates for products imported into the United States.
(e) The electronic foreign inspection certification and paper foreign inspection certificate must contain:
(1) The date;
(2) The foreign country of export and the producing foreign establishment number;
(3) The species used to produce the product and the source country and foreign establishment number, if the source materials originate from a country other than the exporting country;
(4) The product's description including the process category, the product category, and the product group;
(5) The name and address of the importer or consignee;
(6) The name and address of the exporter or consignor;
(7) The number of units (pieces or containers) and the shipping or identification mark on the units;
(8) The net weight of each lot; and
(9) Any additional information the Administrator requests to determine whether the product is eligible to be imported into the United States.
(a) Applicants must submit an import inspection application to apply for the inspection of any product offered for entry. Applicants may apply for inspection using a paper or electronic application form.
(b) Import inspection applications for each consignment must be submitted (electronically or on paper) to FSIS in advance of the shipment's arrival at the official import establishment where the product will be reinspected, but no later than when the entry is filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to products that are exempted from inspection by §§ 590.960 and 590.965.
(a)(1) Except as provided in §§ 590.960 and 590.965 and paragraph (b) of this section, egg products offered for entry from any foreign country must be reinspected at an official import inspection establishment or official plant by a program inspector before they may be allowed entry into the United States.
(2) Every lot of product must routinely be given visual reinspection by a program inspector for appearance and condition and be checked for certification and label compliance as provided in §§ 590.915, 590.950, and 590.955.
(3) Program inspectors must consult the electronic inspection system for reinspection instructions. The electronic inspection system will assign
(b) Official program personnel may take, without cost to the United States, from each consignment of egg product offered for entry, such samples of the products as are deemed necessary to determine the eligibility of the products for entry into the commerce of the United States.
(a) No egg products required by this subpart to be inspected will be released from customs custody prior to required inspections, but such product may be delivered to the importer, or his agent, prior to inspection, if the importer furnishes a bond, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, on the condition that the product must be returned, if demanded, to the collector of the port where the product was offered for clearance through customs.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, no product required by this subpart to be inspected will be moved prior to inspection from the port of arrival where first unloaded, and if arriving by water from the wharf where first unloaded at such port, to any place other than the place designated in accordance with this part as the place where the product must be inspected; and no product will be conveyed in any manner other than in compliance with this subpart.
(c) The importer, or his agent, must furnish such equipment and must provide such assistance for handling and inspecting, where applicable, egg products offered for entry as the program inspector may require.
(d) Official import inspection establishments must provide buildings and equipment that meet the sanitation requirements contained in 9 CFR part 416.
(a) Compartments of steamships, railroad cars, and other means of conveyance transporting any egg products to the United States, and all chutes, platforms, racks, tables, tools, utensils, and all other devices used in moving and handling any egg products offered for entry into the United States, must be maintained in accordance with 9 CFR 416.4.
(b) All conveyances containing imported liquid egg products must be sealed by inspection authorities in the exporting country. Seals may be broken at U.S. port-of-entry for purposes of inspection by official program personnel or customs officers.
(a) Except for products offered for entry from Canada, egg products that upon reinspection are found to be acceptable for entry into the United States must be identified as “U.S. Inspected and Passed” product. The official inspection legend shown in paragraph (b) of this section will identify product only after completion of official import inspection and product acceptance.
(b) The official mark for identifying egg products offered for entry as “U.S. Inspected and Passed” must be in the following form, and any device approved by the Administrator for applying such mark must be an official device.
(c) Owners or operators of plants, other than official plants, who want to have import inspections made at their plants, must apply to the Administrator for approval of their establishments for such purpose. Application must be made on a form furnished by the Program, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, and must include all information called for by that form.
(d) No brand manufacturer or other person will cast or otherwise make, without an official certificate issued by official program personnel, a brand or other marking device containing an official inspection legend, or simulation thereof, as shown in § 590.940(b).
(e) The inspection legend may be placed on containers of product before completion of the official import inspection if the containers are being inspected by an import inspector who reports directly to a program supervisor, the product is not required to be held at the official import inspection establishment pending receipt of laboratory test results, and a written procedure for the controlled stamping, submitted by the official import inspection establishment and approved by the Food Safety and Inspection Service, is on file at the import inspection location where the inspection is to be performed.
(f)(1) The written procedure for the controlled release and identification of product should be in the form of a letter and must include the following:
(i) That stamping under this subpart is limited to those lots of product that can be inspected on the day that certificates for the product are examined;
(ii) That all products that have been pre-stamped will be stored in the facility where the import inspection will occur;
(iii) That inspection marks applied under this part will be removed from any lot of product subsequently refused entry on the day the product is rejected; and
(iv) That the establishment will maintain a daily stamping log containing the following information for each lot of product: The date of inspection, the country of origin, the foreign establishment number, the product name, the number of units, the shipping container marks and foreign inspection certificate number covering the product to be inspected. The daily log must be retained by the establishment in accordance with § 590.200.
(2) An establishment's controlled program privilege may be cancelled orally or in writing by the inspector who is supervising its enforcement whenever the inspector finds that the establishment has failed to comply with the provisions of this subpart or any conditions imposed pursuant thereto. If the cancellation is oral, the decision and the reasons for it must be confirmed in writing, as promptly as circumstances allow. Any person whose controlled pre-stamping program privilege has been cancelled may appeal the decision to the Administrator, in writing, within ten (10) days after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the controlled program was wrongfully cancelled. The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons
(a)(1) Official program personnel must report their findings as to any product that has been inspected in accordance with this subpart to the Director of Customs at the original port of entry where the same is offered for clearance through Customs inspection.
(2) When product is refused entry into the United States, the official mark to be applied to the product refused entry must be in the following form:
(3) When product has been identified as “U.S. Refused Entry,” official program personnel must request the Director of Customs to refuse admission of such product and to direct that it be exported by the owner or importer within the time specified in this section, unless the owner or importer, within the specified time, causes it to be destroyed by disposing of it under the supervision of official program personnel so that the product can no longer be used as human food, or by converting it to animal food uses, if permitted by the Food and Drug Administration. The owner or importer of the refused entry product must not transfer legal title to such product, except to a foreign importer for direct and immediate exportation, or to an end user,
(4) The owner or importer will have 45 days after notice is given by FSIS to the Director of Customs at the original port of entry to take the action required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for “refused entry” product. An extension beyond the 45-day period may be granted by the Administrator when extreme circumstances warrant it,
(5) If the owner or importer fails to take the required action within the time specified under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the Department will take such actions as may be necessary to effectuate its order to have the product destroyed for human food purposes. The Department will seek court costs and fees, storage, and proper expenses in the appropriate forum.
(6) No egg product that has been refused entry and exported to another country pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section may be returned to the United States under any circumstances. Any such product so returned to the United States will be subject to administrative detention in accordance with section 1048 of the Act and seizure and condemnation in accordance with section 1049 of the Act.
(7) Egg products that have been refused entry solely because of misbranding may be brought into compliance with the requirements of this chapter under the supervision of an authorized representative of the Administrator.
(b) Upon the request of the Director of Customs at the port where an egg product is offered for clearance through the customs, the importer of the product must, at the importer's own expense, immediately return to the Director any product that has been delivered to the importer under this subpart and subsequently designated “U.S. Refused Entry” or found in any request not to comply with the requirements in this part.
(c) Except as provided in § 590.930(a) or (b), no person will remove or cause to be removed from any place designated as the place of inspection of egg products that the regulations in this part require to be identified in any way, unless the same has been clearly and legibly identified in compliance with this part.
(d) Any person receiving inspection services may, if dissatisfied with any decision of an inspector relating to any inspection, file an appeal from such decision. Any such appeal from a decision of an inspector must be made to the inspector's immediate supervisor having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal, and such supervisor must determine whether the inspector's decision was correct. Review of such an appeal determination, when requested, must be made by the immediate supervisor of the Department employee making the appeal determination. The egg products involved in any appeal must be identified by U.S. retained tags and segregated in a manner approved by the inspector pending completion of an appeal inspection.
(e) All loss or inedible eggs, or inedible egg products must be disposed of in accordance with § 590.504(c)(1).
(a) Immediate containers of product offered for entry into the United States must bear a label, printed in English, showing:
(1) The name of the product;
(2) The name of the country of origin of the product, and for consumer packaged products, preceded by the words “Product of,” which statement must appear immediately under the name of the product;
(3) [Reserved];
(4) The word “Ingredients” followed by a list of the ingredients in order of descending proportions by weight;
(5) The name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, qualified by a phrase which reveals the connection that such person has with the product;
(6) An accurate statement of the quantity;
(7) The inspection mark of the country of origin;
(8) Plant number of the plant at which the egg products were processed; and
(9) The date of production and plant number of the plant at which the egg products were processed or packed.
(b) For properly sealed and certified shipments of shell eggs for breaking at an official plant, the immediate containers need not be labeled, provided that the shipment is segregated and controlled upon arrival at the destination breaking plant.
(c) The labels must not be false or misleading in any respect.
Shipping containers of imported egg products are required to bear in a prominent and legible manner the name of the product, the name of the country of origin, the foreign inspection system plant number of the plant in which the product was processed, shipping or identification marks, production codes, and the inspection mark of the country or origin. Labeling on shipping containers must be examined at the time of inspection in the United States and if found to be false or misleading, the product must be refused entry.
(a) Egg products eligible for importation may be relabeled with an approved label under the supervision of an inspector at an official plant or official import inspection establishment. The new label for such product must indicate the country of origin, except for egg products that are processed (repasteurized or, in the case of dried product, dry blended with product produced in the United States) in an official plant.
(b) Egg products that have been refused entry into the United States solely because of misbranding may be brought into compliance with the labeling requirements of this chapter.
(c) The label for relabeled products must state the name, address, and zip code of the distributor, qualified by an appropriate term such as “packed for”, “distributed by”, or “distributors”.
Egg products (other than those that are forbidden entry by other Federal law or regulation) from any country, that are exclusively for the importer's personal use, display, or laboratory analysis, and not for sale or distribution; that are sound, healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food; and that are not adulterated and do not contain any substance not permitted by the Act or regulations, may be admitted into the United States without a foreign inspection certificate. Such products are not required to be inspected upon arrival in the United States and may be shipped to the importer without further restriction under this part, except as provided in 9 CFR 590.925(b), provided that the Department may, with respect to any specific importation, require that the importer certify that such product is exclusively for said importer's personal use, display, or laboratory analysis and not for sale or distribution. The amount of liquid, frozen, or dried egg products imported must not exceed 50 pounds.
U.S. inspected and passed and so marked egg products exported to and returned from foreign countries will be admitted into the United States without compliance with this part upon notification to and approval of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, in specific cases.
21 U.S.C. 1031-1056; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(a) All official plants must comply with the requirements contained in 9 CFR parts 416, Sanitation, and 417, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) For the purposes of 9 CFR parts 416, Sanitation, 417, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems, and 500, Rules of Practice, an official establishment or establishment includes an official plant.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 1035 and 1043, the failure of an official plant to develop and implement a HACCP plan that complies with 9 CFR part 417, or to operate in accordance with the requirements in this part, may render the products produced under those conditions adulterated.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretation; delay of effective date.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is amending Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act, and the official interpretations to those regulations. This rulemaking relates to a final rule published in the
The amendments in this final rule are effective on April 1, 2019. The effective date of the final rule published on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83934), as delayed on April 25, 2017 (82 FR 18975), is further delayed from April 1, 2018 to April 1, 2019. The effective date of the final rule published on April 25, 2017 (82 FR 18975), is delayed from April 1, 2018 to April 1, 2019. The effective date for the addition of § 1005.19(b), published on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83934), as confirmed on April 25, 2017 (82 FR 18975), is delayed from October 1, 2018 to April 1, 2019.
Yaritza Velez, Counsel, and Kristine M. Andreassen, Krista Ayoub, and Thomas L. Devlin, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
The Bureau is finalizing amendments to its 2016 rule that created comprehensive consumer protections for prepaid accounts under Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA),
Based on feedback received by the Bureau through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation of the 2016 Final Rule as well as in comments received on the 2017 Effective Date Proposal, the Bureau proposed to amend several provisions of the 2016 Final Rule (June 2017 Proposal).
• Revising the error resolution and limited liability provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule in Regulation E to provide that financial institutions are not required to resolve errors or limit consumers' liability on unverified prepaid accounts. For accounts where the consumer's identity is later verified, financial institutions are not required to limit liability and resolve errors with regard to disputed transactions that occurred prior to verification.
• Creating a limited exception to the credit-related provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule in Regulation Z for certain business arrangements between prepaid account issuers and credit card issuers that offer traditional credit card products. This exception is designed to address certain complications in applying the credit provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to credit card accounts linked to digital wallets that can store funds where the credit card accounts are already subject to Regulation Z's open-end credit card rules in circumstances that appear to pose lower risks to consumers. This final rule also expands the situations in which prepaid account issuers are permitted to run negative balances on prepaid accounts, provided certain conditions are met.
• Extending the overall effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to April 1, 2019.
• Making clarifications or minor adjustments to provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule in Regulation E related to an exclusion from the definition of prepaid account, unsolicited issuance of access devices, several aspects of the rule's pre-acquisition disclosure requirements, and submission of prepaid account agreements to the Bureau.
• Making technical corrections to certain provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule in both Regulations E and Z.
Due to recent changes in requirements by the Office of the Federal Register, when amending commentary the Bureau is now required to reprint certain subsections being amended in their entirety rather than providing more targeted amendatory instructions. The length of the commentary in this final rule thus appears much longer than what was included in the June 2017 Proposal. The Bureau is releasing an unofficial, informal redline to assist industry and other stakeholders in reviewing the changes that this final rule is making to the Prepaid Accounts Rule.
In the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau extended Regulation E coverage to prepaid accounts and adopted provisions specific to such accounts, and generally expanded Regulation Z's coverage to overdraft features that may be offered in conjunction with prepaid accounts. Upon issuing the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau initiated robust efforts to support industry implementation.
In the course of the Bureau's work to help industry implement the 2016 Final Rule, some industry participants raised concerns about what they described as unanticipated complexities arising from the interaction of certain aspects of the rule with certain business models and practices, including those newly adopted, that industry participants did not fully address in their comment letters on the 2014 Proposal. They indicated that these issues could complicate implementation and affect consumers.
In light of these concerns, on March 9, 2017, the Bureau released the 2017 Effective Date Proposal with a request for comment.
On April 20, 2017, the Bureau released the 2017 Effective Date Final Rule, which delayed the general effective date of the 2016 Final Rule until April 1, 2018.
The Bureau subsequently proposed to amend several provisions of the 2016 Final Rule via the June 2017 Proposal. After reviewing public comments received on the proposal, the Bureau is finalizing the June 2017 Proposal generally as proposed, with certain modifications, as discussed below.
In the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to amend several provisions of the 2016 Final Rule, largely based on feedback received by the Bureau through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation of the 2016 Final Rule as well as in comments received on the 2017 Effective Date Proposal. In particular, the proposed rule would have: Revised the error resolution and limited liability provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule with respect to unverified accounts; created a limited exception to the credit-related provisions of the 2016 Final Rule in Regulation Z for certain business arrangements between prepaid account issuers and credit card issuers that offer traditional credit card products; and made clarifications or minor adjustments to several provisions of the 2016 Final Rule. The contents of the June 2017 Proposal are discussed in detail in the section-by-section analysis in part V below.
The Bureau also solicited comment on whether a further delay of the rule's effective date would be necessary and appropriate in light of the proposed amendments, and whether a specific provision addressing early compliance would be necessary and appropriate.
The comment period for the June 2017 Proposal closed on August 14, 2017. The Bureau received 32 comment letters from consumer advocacy groups; national and regional trade associations; members of the prepaid industry, including issuing banks and credit unions, program managers, and a digital wallet provider; a think tank; and several anonymous commenters. The Bureau also considered comments received after the comment period closed, via several ex parte meetings and other communications.
In addition to the comments summarized in the section-by-section analysis in part V below, many commenters raised other issues that were beyond the scope of what the Bureau proposed. These comments argued for the Bureau to take a number of actions, including: Refining or limiting the scope of the definition of “prepaid account” (for example, to clarify the treatment of so-called “checkless checking” accounts or to exempt digital wallets from coverage under the rule); making changes to, or exempting certain prepaid accounts from, the requirement to provide certain disclosures (such as the long form, short form, and/or oral disclosures, in various circumstances); either expanding or reducing the scope of Regulation E's compulsory use prohibition; eliminating the requirement that issuers submit their prepaid account agreements to the Bureau or modifying the general timeframe for agreement submissions; exempting credit unions from coverage under the rule; generally not imposing additional requirements or price caps on prepaid accounts; and rescinding the rule entirely. Other commenters provided more general feedback to the Bureau, offering suggestions about how the Bureau could improve both its rulemaking and regulatory implementation processes, both in general and in particular with respect to the Prepaid Accounts Rule. The Bureau will continue its outreach to industry and other stakeholders to understand their experiences in implementing the Prepaid Accounts Rule and welcomes
The Bureau is exercising its rulemaking authority pursuant to EFTA section 904(a) and (c), sections 1022(b) and 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),
The legal authority for the 2016 Final Rule is described in detail in that rule's
Section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act
As discussed above, the Prepaid Accounts Rule amended Regulation E, which implements EFTA, and Regulation Z, which implements TILA, along with the official interpretations thereto. Based on feedback received by the Bureau through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation as well as in comments received on the 2017 Effective Date Proposal, and following notice and comment on the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau is amending several provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. This overview provides a summary of the amendments; each amendment, along with its rationale, is discussed in detail in the section-by-section analyses that follow.
Specifically, the Bureau is amending the definition of “business partner” in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) and related commentary to exclude business arrangements between prepaid account issuers and issuers of traditional credit
Section 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) requires a financial institution to provide pre-acquisition disclosures in a foreign language if the financial institution provides a means for the consumer to acquire a prepaid account by telephone or electronically principally in that foreign language. The Bureau is amending § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C), adding new comment 18(b)(9)-1.ii.D, and making conforming changes in comments 18(b)(9)-1.i.E and ii.B to provide that foreign language disclosures are not required for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts where the foreign language is offered by telephone only via a real-time language interpretation service provided by a third party, or directly by an employer or government agency on an informal or ad hoc basis as an accommodation to prospective payroll card account or government benefit account recipients.
In the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau extended Regulation E coverage to prepaid accounts by creating a new defined term—“prepaid account”—in § 1005.2(b)(3) as a subcategory of the definition of “account” in § 1005.2(b)(1). The definition of prepaid account in § 1005.2(b)(3) covers a range of products including general purpose reloadable (GPR) cards, as well as other products such as certain non-reloadable accounts and digital wallets. It also contains several exclusions from the definition of prepaid account, including for gift certificates; store gift cards; loyalty, award, or promotional gift cards; and general-use prepaid cards that are both marketed and labeled as gift cards or gift certificates, all of which are subject to a separate set of requirements under 2009 legislation and implementing regulations.
The Bureau explained in the 2016 Final Rule its reasoning for excluding gift certificates, store gift cards, and general-use prepaid cards that are both marketed and labeled as gift cards or gift certificates from the definition of prepaid account. Specifically, the Bureau stated that, after considering the comments on the 2014 Proposal, it remained convinced that subjecting this general category of products to both the Gift Card Rule and the requirements of the 2016 Final Rule would place a significant burden on industry without a corresponding consumer benefit. In discussing its rationale for having proposed these exclusions in the 2014 Proposal, the Bureau also stated that, among other things, it was concerned about the possibility of consumer confusion regarding products covered by both regimes, though it did not believe the exclusion should extend to products that consumers may use as or confuse with transaction accounts even if such products were also covered by the Gift Card Rule.
As explained in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau became aware through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation that there may be some confusion as to whether the exception in § 1005.2(b)(3)(ii)(D)(
The Bureau proposed to clarify the scope of this exclusion by revising § 1005.2(b)(3)(ii)(D)(
Commenters, including industry trade associations, a think tank, and an anonymous commenter, supported the proposed revision to § 1005.2(b)(3)(ii)(D)(
In response to the Bureau's request for comment regarding whether, in the alternative, loyalty, award, or promotional gift cards that do not provide the disclosures enumerated by § 1005.20(a)(4)(iii) should be covered by the Prepaid Accounts Rule but provided with certain transitional exclusions and accommodations, a trade association stated that all loyalty, award, or promotional gift cards should be excluded from the definition of prepaid account, regardless of the method by which the product qualifies as a loyalty, award, or promotional gift card, and therefore the Bureau should not adopt this alternative proposal.
Many commenters did not respond regarding the Bureau's proposed revision to § 1005.2(b)(3)(ii)(D)(
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to § 1005.2(b)(3)(ii)(D)(
The Bureau appreciates the trade association's comment that few if any products need this exclusion because, it said, virtually all loyalty, award, and promotional gift cards provide the disclosures enumerated by § 1005.20(a)(4)(iii). However, since the Bureau received questions from industry on the status of such products without the disclosure, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to make this clarification.
The exclusions for other types of products requested by commenters were beyond the scope of the Bureau's proposal, and thus the Bureau is not making any such changes at this time.
As discussed in detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1005.18(e)(3) below, the Bureau is making certain changes regarding error resolution and limited liability requirements to address concerns about the treatment of unverified accounts. This change has rendered unnecessary § 1005.11(c)(2)(i)(C), which had been added by the 2016 Final Rule to reflect the exception to the requirement to provide provisional credit for errors asserted on unverified accounts. The Bureau did not receive any comments regarding this portion of the proposal in particular.
Specifically, § 1005.11(c)(2)(i)(C) provided that a financial institution is not required to provisionally credit a consumer's account if the alleged error involves a prepaid account, other than a payroll card account or government benefit account, for which the financial institution has not successfully completed its consumer identification and verification process, as set forth in prior § 1005.18(e)(3)(ii). As discussed in
Section 1005.18(a) states that a financial institution shall comply with all applicable requirements of EFTA and Regulation E with respect to prepaid accounts except as modified by § 1005.18. One of those generally applicable requirements concerns the issuance of access devices in § 1005.5, which implements EFTA section 911.
As discussed in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau received some questions about application of § 1005.5 to prepaid accounts and believed that additional clarification may be warranted. In particular, industry stakeholders had asked about how § 1005.5—which (along with EFTA section 911) appears to have been drafted with a focus on providing access devices for existing accounts where the consumer has means of accessing funds in the account other than by using the access device—applies to certain prepaid accounts where there is no means of access to the underlying funds other than via the prepaid card.
Specifically, Regulation E provides that a financial institution may issue an access device for an account to a consumer only when solicited to do so by the consumer pursuant to § 1005.5(a) (that is, in response to an oral or written request for the device, or as a renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted access device) or on an unsolicited basis in accordance with the requirements set forth in § 1005.5(b). Section 1005.5(b) provides that a financial institution may distribute an access device to a consumer on an unsolicited basis if the access device is (1) not validated, meaning that the financial institution has not yet performed all the procedures that would enable a consumer to initiate an EFT using the access device; (2) accompanied by a clear explanation that the access device is not validated and how the consumer may dispose of it if validation is not desired; (3) accompanied by the disclosures required by § 1005.7 of the consumer's rights and liabilities that will apply if the access device is validated; and (4) validated only in response to the consumer's oral or written request for validation, after the financial institution has verified the consumer's identity by a reasonable means.
As noted above, the Bureau received questions from industry about how the unsolicited issuance rules set forth in § 1005.5(b) apply to prepaid accounts used for making disbursements where the consumer is given no other option but to receive the disbursement via a prepaid account, such as prison release cards, jury duty cards, and certain types of refund cards. Specifically, the concern stemmed from § 1005.5(b)(2), which requires the financial institution to provide a clear explanation that the access device is not validated and how the consumer may dispose of it if validation is not desired. Industry stakeholders expressed concern that this requirement could be interpreted to mean, in the prepaid context, that they must provide another option by which consumers can receive their funds, despite the Bureau's decision at the time of the 2016 Final Rule not to extend the compulsory use prohibition in § 1005.10(e)(2) to other types of prepaid accounts beyond payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts.
As it stated in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau did not intend application of the unsolicited issuance requirements to mandate that consumers be offered other options to receive payments in circumstances beyond those already addressed by the compulsory use prohibition.
The Bureau proposed to clarify application of the unsolicited issuance rules to prepaid accounts where the consumer is not offered any other options by which to receive a disbursement of funds. Specifically, in order to make clear that § 1005.5(b)(2) does not require a financial institution or other party to offer consumers other options to receive such disbursements, the Bureau proposed to add to comment
Several industry commenters, including a trade association, an issuing bank, and a think tank, supported the proposed modification to comment 18(a)-1. The issuing bank confirmed that clarification was necessary because some entities had interpreted § 1005.5(b) to mean that, for prepaid accounts where the device itself is the only means by which consumers can access their funds, financial institutions would be required to provide another method of access. The issuing bank also stated that the proposed modification would be especially helpful in connection with prison work release programs and post-incarceration programs that use prepaid cards to help address issues related to security, access to funds for both prisoners and parolees, and proper monitoring of card usage. The issuing bank requested that the Bureau specify what information financial institutions should include with the access device to alert consumers that there are no other means by which to access their funds.
A consumer advocacy group stated that the proposed language did not account for refund provisions that are commonly found in prison release card agreements and could lead to consumer confusion. This commenter explained that most prison release card agreements allow the consumer to obtain a replacement card if the card is lost or stolen and to access funds in the account in a variety of ways, including by making an ATM withdrawal or requesting the issuance of a check. The commenter expressed concern that consumers might interpret the proposed disclosure to mean they have no ability to obtain the funds in their accounts other than by using the access device at the point of sale. This commenter also stated that, if a consumer loses his or her card and wishes to withdraw the remaining balance of the account via an alternative method, the financial institution should allow that, subject to reasonable identity verification procedures. The commenter asserted that, as written, the proposed revision could be read as prohibiting such a transaction. The commenter therefore suggested revisions to the proposed language that it believed would both alert consumers to the importance of retaining the physical card and clearly convey information about alternate methods consumers can use to access their funds.
Consumer advocates and industry commenters also requested that the Bureau make modifications to Regulation E's compulsory use prohibition governing payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts. Specifically, the consumer advocates suggested extending the compulsory use prohibition to other types of prepaid accounts, such as prison release cards, jury duty cards, and certain other types of refund cards or, in the alternative, limiting the fees on cards that are provided on an unsolicited basis. Regarding prison release cards in particular, they urged the Bureau to consider a rulemaking or exercise of its authority under title X of the Dodd-Frank Act to prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) to specifically address concerns related to these accounts. On the other hand, a trade association cautioned that an expanded compulsory use prohibition would threaten the viability of these types of prepaid accounts. Another trade association urged the Bureau to refrain from exercising its UDAAP authority without first obtaining more information about the types of programs that do not allow for consumer choice and without providing additional guidance to the public about what could be construed as a UDAAP. An issuing bank requested an exception from the existing compulsory use prohibition for government benefit accounts that mirrors what currently exists for payroll card accounts in emergency situations.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to comment 18(a)-1 generally as proposed, with one modification discussed below. The Bureau continues to believe that, for prepaid accounts where an alternative means for a consumer to receive the funds in the account is not offered, it is reasonable for the disclosure required by § 1005.5(b)(2) to include a statement explaining that there is no other way for the consumer to receive his or her funds if the consumer disposes of the access device. However, based on the comments received, the Bureau understands that the proposed wording of the revision could have caused confusion as to whether the access device is the only means to access funds being disbursed via the prepaid account initially or whether using the access device is the only way to access the funds until the account balance is exhausted. Therefore, the Bureau is adopting the comment with a revision to make clear that the financial institution must inform the consumer that the consumer has no other means by which to initially receive the funds in the prepaid account other than by accepting the access device, as well as the consequences of disposing of the access device. The Bureau believes this clarification will resolve any potential confusion related to the disclosure required by § 1005.5(b)(2) for prepaid accounts lacking consumer choice.
The Bureau does not believe it is necessary to require, as part of the § 1005.5(b) disclosure, that financial institutions provide a list of other means of access to funds that are deposited in a prepaid account or to disclose procedures for replacing a lost or stolen access device. The Bureau understands that financial institutions often encourage consumers to review the terms and conditions of their prepaid accounts to learn about other methods, if any, by which they can access their funds, and expects industry will continue doing so. The Bureau also notes that any methods of accessing funds for a fee must be included in the long form disclosure pursuant § 1005.18(b)(4), and that financial institutions are permitted to include information about free services and features in the long form disclosure as well. Regarding the comment requesting that the Bureau provide specific language that financial institutions must include with the prepaid account device to alert consumers that there are no other means by which to access their funds, the Bureau does not believe it would be appropriate to further prescribe specific language as it expects that nature of the disclosure will vary from institution to institution based on their particular circumstances.
Commenters' requests related to Regulation E's compulsory use prohibition more generally are outside the scope of this rulemaking, and thus the Bureau is not making any such changes at this time. The Bureau notes that to the extent prepaid accounts are used to disburse consumers' wages or covered government benefits, as defined under applicable law, such accounts are already covered by § 1005.10(e)(2) and will continue to be so under the Prepaid Accounts Rule. The Bureau notes
The Prepaid Accounts Rule generally requires a financial institution to provide a consumer with both a “short form” and a “long form” disclosure before the consumer acquires a prepaid account. The Bureau adopted those pre-acquisition disclosure requirements pursuant to EFTA sections 904(a), (b), and (c), 905(a), and 913(2),
Section 1005.18(b)(1)(i) requires a financial institution to provide the short form and long form disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) before a consumer acquires a prepaid account; an alternative timing regime exists for prepaid accounts acquired in retail locations or acquired orally by telephone, as described in § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii) and (iii), respectively.
As discussed in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau believed that consumers would benefit from receiving both the short form and long form disclosures in writing prior to acquisition because the disclosures serve different but complementary goals. The Bureau believed that the pre-acquisition disclosures would limit the ability of financial institutions to obscure key fees as well as allow consumers to better comparison shop among products. Even in situations where the consumer might not easily be able to comparison shop, such as when students are offered a card by their university, the Bureau believed that receiving the short form and long form disclosures pre-acquisition would allow consumers to better understand the product's terms before deciding whether to accept it and also could inform the way in which consumers decide to use the product once acquired. Relatedly, the Bureau believed that because consumers often use their prepaid accounts for an extended period, whatever disclosure information a consumer used when selecting the prepaid account could have a significant and potentially long-term impact.
Through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation, the Bureau received some questions about what it means to provide disclosures “pre” acquisition for products where the party making the disbursement to the consumer (or the financial institution) does not offer any alternative means for the consumer to receive those funds. (For further discussion of such products, see the section-by-section analysis of § 1005.18(a) above.) For example, if a refund card is sent by mail, industry stakeholders asked whether the financial institution would have to first mail the pre-acquisition disclosures to the consumer and then later send the card. The Bureau also heard concerns regarding certain in-person acquisition scenarios, such as with prison release or jury duty cards, although pre-acquisition disclosures could be provided more easily in advance of the consumer receiving the prepaid account in such cases.
The Bureau continues to believe that the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) are important for consumers to receive for all prepaid products, and does not believe exclusions for certain types of products would be appropriate. However, as explained in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau did not intend to require that an additional separate formal step for disclosure delivery be added to the acquisition process for products where consumers are not making a choice as to whether to acquire the prepaid account. The Bureau did not believe that sending or otherwise providing the disclosures separately for prepaid accounts in this situation would be beneficial to consumers and acknowledged that, particularly if separate mailings were made, financial institutions could incur additional costs in delivering the pre-acquisition disclosures separately from the prepaid account itself.
The Bureau therefore proposed revisions to § 1005.18(b)(1)(i) and related commentary to clarify the timing requirements for delivery of pre-acquisition disclosures in this situation. Specifically, the Bureau proposed to add to the regulatory text of § 1005.18(b)(1)(i) a statement that, when a prepaid account is used for disbursing funds to a consumer, and the financial institution or third party making the disbursement does not offer any alternative means for the consumer to receive those funds in lieu of accepting the prepaid account, the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) may be provided at the time the consumer receives the prepaid account. The Bureau also proposed to add an example, as comment 18(b)(1)(i)-1.ii, to illustrate such a scenario involving a utility company that refunds consumers' initial deposits for its utility services via prepaid accounts delivered to consumers by mail. In addition, the Bureau proposed to renumber the paragraphs within comment 18(b)(1)(i)-1 for clarity.
Several industry trade associations and a think tank commented in support of the proposed revisions to § 1005.18(b)(1)(i). One of the trade associations stated that, in situations where the only method to disburse funds is via a prepaid account, requiring the financial institution (or third party) to send the pre-acquisition disclosures separately from the access device offers consumers no benefit or protection and could instead harm consumers by delaying access to their funds. The Bureau received no comments opposing this aspect of the proposal.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to § 1005.18(b)(1)(i) and comment 18(b)(1)(i)-1 as proposed, with a grammatical correction in the first sentence. As discussed above and in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau continues to believe that consumers will benefit from receiving both the short form and long form disclosures in writing prior to prepaid account acquisition because the disclosures serve different but complementary goals.
The Bureau is therefore finalizing § 1005.18(b)(1)(i) to make clear that, when a prepaid account is used for disbursing funds to a consumer, and the financial institution or third party making the disbursement does not offer any alternative means for the consumer to receive those funds in lieu of accepting the prepaid account, the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) may be provided at the time the consumer receives the prepaid account. Pursuant to this change, the financial institution or third party is not required to first mail or otherwise deliver the disclosures and then later provide the card.
The Bureau notes that the accommodation in final § 1005.18(b)(1)(i) does not apply to payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts because they are subject to the compulsory use prohibition in § 1005.10(e)(2). Comments 15(c)-1 and 2 and final comment 18(b)(1)(i)-1.i.B address the timing of pre-acquisition disclosures for such accounts.
Section 1005.18(b)(1)(ii) states that a financial institution is not required to provide the long form disclosure required by § 1005.18(b)(4) before a consumer acquires a prepaid account in person at a retail location provided certain conditions are met. Specifically, these conditions are: (A) The prepaid account access device must be contained inside the packaging material; (B) the short form disclosure required by § 1005.18(b)(2) must be provided on or visible through an outward-facing, external surface of the access device's packaging material; (C) the short form disclosure must include the information set forth in § 1005.18(b)(2)(xiii) that allows a consumer to access the information required to be disclosed in the long form by telephone and via a website; and (D) the long form disclosure must be provided after the consumer acquires the prepaid account.
As discussed in the 2016 Final Rule and as noted above, the Bureau believed that consumers would benefit from receiving both the short form and long form disclosures in writing prior to acquisition because the disclosures serve different but complementary goals. However, the Bureau was cognizant of the potentially significant cost to industry related to providing the long form disclosure prior to acquisition at retail and making packaging adjustments necessary to accommodate such a disclosure given the space constraints for products sold at retail. The Bureau thus finalized the retail location exception in § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii), which it believed struck the appropriate balance between providing consumers with—or access to—important disclosures before acquiring a prepaid account while recognizing the packaging, space, and other constraints faced by financial institutions when selling prepaid accounts at retail.
Specifically, in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau explained that it was adopting § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii)(D) to make clear that, to qualify for the retail location exception, a financial institution must provide the long form disclosure after the consumer acquires the prepaid account. The Bureau noted that this provision does not set forth a specific time by which the long form disclosure must be provided after acquisition, but explained that, in practice, it expected that compliance with this requirement would typically be accomplished in conjunction with § 1005.18(f)(1), which requires a financial institution to provide, as part of its initial disclosures given pursuant to § 1005.7, all of the information required to be disclosed pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(4).
During the Bureau's outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation, a trade association told the Bureau that providing the long form disclosure—in accordance with the form and formatting requirements set forth in § 1005.18(b)(6) and (7)—as part of the initial disclosures for the prepaid account contained inside the packaging material for prepaid accounts sold at retail may pose problems for financial institutions. The trade association explained that, for at least some institutions, this requirement might necessitate a substantial increase in the size of the packages in order to accommodate the long form disclosure, thus requiring retooling of their “J-hook” packaging. Because the 2016 Final Rule did not specify the method by which the long form disclosure must be provided pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii)(D), the trade association said that financial institutions might resort to sending the long form disclosure to the consumer by mail to avoid increasing the size of retail packaging to accommodate the disclosure. The trade association also asked whether the long form disclosure could be provided electronically without E-Sign consent, similar to the transitional accommodation in § 1005.18(h)(2)(iv) for providing certain notices to consumers.
In light of these concerns, the Bureau proposed to revise § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii)(D) to state that, if a financial institution does not provide the long form disclosure inside the prepaid account packaging material, and it is not otherwise already mailing or delivering to the consumer written account-related communications within 30 days of obtaining the consumer's contact information, it may provide the long form disclosure in electronic form without regard to the consumer notice and consent requirements of section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act. That is, this accommodation would only be available to financial institutions that are not otherwise mailing or delivering written account-related communications to the consumer post-acquisition. The Bureau also proposed to add language to comment 18(b)(1)(ii)-4 that would explain that a financial institution that has not obtained the consumer's contact information is not required to comply with the requirements set forth in proposed § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii)(D). A financial institution is able to contact the consumer when, for example, it has the consumer's mailing address or email address.
Several industry commenters, including trade associations, an issuing bank, and a think tank, supported the proposed revisions to § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii)(D). Two trade associations and the issuing bank stated that the proposed revisions would also afford financial institutions some flexibility without increasing costs or harming consumers. These commenters argued that increasing the size of packaging material for prepaid accounts sold at retail, or alternatively separately
A group of consumer advocates opposed the proposed revisions to § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii)(D) because, they argued, the result would be that consumers who may not be able to receive electronic communications may never receive the long form disclosure. They also asserted that the retail packaging constraints are not a significant issue, stating that many prepaid cards sold via “J-hook” displays already contain printed material that can accommodate the long form disclosure. In response to the Bureau's request for comment on whether a similar modification to § 1005.18(b)(1)(iii)(C) is necessary for prepaid accounts acquired orally by telephone, these commenters agreed with the Bureau's initial assessment that E-Sign consent should not be waived for accounts acquired by telephone because consumers can easily receive the long form disclosure by mail (with their access device) or can consent to electronic communications.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii)(D) and comment 18(b)(1)(ii)-4 as proposed. As noted above and in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau was aware of the potential significant costs to industry related to the requirement to provide the long form disclosure prior to acquisition at retail and thus finalized the retail location exception in § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii).
The Bureau requested comment on a number of specific questions about financial institutions' processes and plans for providing the long form disclosure to consumers and whether the Bureau could make other accommodations regarding the retail location exception to facilitate the inclusion of the long form disclosure inside the packaging.
Under this final rule, even consumers who do not have access to electronic communications will nonetheless continue to receive the important information about their prepaid accounts, even though it may not be in the format the Bureau believed would be most beneficial to consumers. For example, consumers will still receive the information required to be disclosed in the long form via the initial disclosures required by §§ 1005.7 and 1005.18(f)(1), which are typically provided inside the packaging of prepaid accounts sold at retail. In addition, financial institutions cannot avail themselves of this new accommodation if they are mailing or delivering any account-related communications (such as sending to the consumer an access device embossed with the consumer's name) within 30 days of obtaining the consumer's contact information. In that instance, the financial institution must include the long form disclosure, in accordance with the form and formatting requirements set forth in § 1005.18(b)(6) and (7),
The Bureau did not receive any requests to adopt a similar modification to § 1005.18(b)(1)(iii)(C) for prepaid accounts acquired orally by telephone, and thus is not making any changes to that provision. As explained in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau does not believe that such a modification is necessary because, in this situation, financial institutions would already be mailing an access device and initial disclosures to consumers and, unlike “J-hook” packaging, the Bureau does not believe, nor did commenters assert, that mailing would face the same space constraints.
The Bureau is renumbering comment 18(b)(1)(iii)-2, regarding disclosures for prepaid accounts acquired by telephone, as comment 18(b)(6)(i)(C)-1 and making certain revisions thereto. See the section-by-section analysis of § 1005.18(b)(6)(i) below for further details.
In addition, the Bureau is also making certain technical corrections in § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii) and related commentary. Specifically, the Bureau is correcting grammar and typographical errors in § 1005.18(b)(1)(ii) (changing “disclosures” to “disclosure”, “are” to “is”, and “include” to “includes”)
The Prepaid Accounts Rule's provisions governing the short form require disclosure of certain “static” fees that are relatively common across the industry as well as disclosure of certain additional types of fees that the
As discussed in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau believed that it was important for financial institutions to disclose to consumers certain fee types not included in the static fees list. The Bureau believed that disclosing additional fee types would create a dynamic disclosure while reducing incentives for manipulating fee structures by, for example, lowering the amount of the static fees in favor of higher fees on fee types incurred less often, thus hiding potential costly charges. The Bureau also believed that putting consumers on notice of such additional fee types would alert them to account features for which they may end up incurring a significant expense. In addition, the Bureau believed that eschewing full standardization in a static short form disclosure in favor of the dynamic disclosure of additional fee types would enable the disclosure to capture market changes and innovations. Furthermore, the Bureau believed that the requirement to disclose additional fee types would allow the short form to reflect the advent of new fee types that consumers may come to incur frequently and for significant cost that otherwise would be prohibited from disclosure in the short form and thus could render it outdated and of diminished value to consumers over time.
Through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation, the Bureau heard concerns about the requirement to disclose the highest fee (accompanied by an asterisk indicating the fee may be lower depending on how and where the card is used) for additional fee types with more than two fee variations, where one of those fee variations is significantly higher than the others; this may occur, for example, with expedited delivery of a replacement card or a bill payment. Because the 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(C) did not allow financial institutions to disclose fee variations within additional fee types when the additional fee type has more than two variations, some industry stakeholders suggested that, rather than disclosing the highest fee in these situations, financial institutions were considering eliminating the service for which that highest fee is charged so as to avoid having to disclose it without additional explanation on the short form.
In response to these concerns, the Bureau proposed to modify § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(C) by providing that, for disclosures other than for multiple service plans, a financial institution may, but is not required to, consolidate the fee variations into two categories and disclose the names of those two fee variation categories and the fee amounts in a format substantially similar to that used to disclose the two-tier fees required by § 1005.18(b)(2)(v) (ATM balance inquiry fees) and (vi) (customer service fees) and in accordance with § 1005.18(b)(3)(i) and (b)(7)(ii)(B)(
Several industry commenters, including a trade association and an issuing bank, supported the proposed revisions to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(C), stating that the changes would provide needed flexibility to this aspect of the Prepaid Accounts Rule's disclosure requirements. In addition, the issuing bank stated that the proposed revisions would allow financial institutions to provide clearer information about additional fee types, as well as better information about lower fee options that consumers would find useful. No commenters opposed this aspect of the proposal.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(C) and comment 18(b)(2)(ix)(C)-1.ii as proposed. The Bureau believes it is appropriate to give financial institutions additional flexibility to provide more detail about additional fee types with multiple fee variations, even though it could add some additional complexity to the short form. Although the Bureau believes that consumers generally will benefit from simplified fee structures, allowing for some flexibility with respect to additional fee types will provide consumers more information about a prepaid account prior to acquisition and
The Bureau notes that it expects that, if the three or more fee variations cannot be consolidated into two categories in a logical manner, or if doing so would cause consumer confusion, the financial institution must disclose the name of the additional fee type and the highest fee amount in the manner that was required under the 2016 Final Rule, rather than avail itself of the new alternative.
In addition, the Bureau is revising dates in the regulatory text and headings in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) to reflect the new overall effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule adopted in this final rule, as discussed in detail in part VI below. Section 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D) describes the timing requirements for the initial assessment of an additional fee types disclosure, and § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(E) describes the timing for the periodic reassessment and update of additional fee types disclosures. The Bureau is revising dates in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D) and in commentary accompanying § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D)(
The Bureau is also making certain technical corrections in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) and related commentary. Specifically, the Bureau is adjusting terminology for consistency with other portions of the regulatory text and commentary in the heading for § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D) (changing “additional fee type” to “additional fee types”) and in comment 18(b)(2)(ix)(E)(
Section 1005.18(b)(6)(i) states that the pre-acquisition disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) must be provided in writing, except in certain circumstances where they must be provided electronically or orally by telephone pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(B) and (C), respectively. Specifically, the 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(B) provides, in part, that these disclosures must be provided in electronic form when a consumer acquires a prepaid account through electronic means, including via a website or mobile application, and must be viewable across all screen sizes. The 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(C) provides, in part, that the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b)(2) and (5) must be provided orally when a consumer acquires a prepaid account orally by telephone as described in § 1005.18(b)(1)(iii).
As explained in the 2016 Final Rule, although the Bureau believed that consumers can best review the terms of a prepaid account before acquiring it when seeing the terms in written form, the Bureau recognized that in certain situations, it is not practicable to provide written disclosures. With respect to electronic disclosures, the Bureau believed it was important for consumers who decide to go online to acquire prepaid accounts to see the relevant disclosures for that prepaid account in electronic form. Furthermore, regarding oral disclosures, the Bureau believed that when, for example, a consumer acquires a prepaid account orally by telephone, it would not be practicable for a financial institution to provide these disclosures in written form; however, the Bureau believed that consumers should nonetheless have the benefit of these pre-acquisition disclosures.
Through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation, the Bureau heard concerns from an issuing bank that it would actually be more practicable and convenient to provide the short form and long form disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) in writing rather than electronically or orally for certain payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts. The issuing bank explained that, in these situations under existing practice today, consumers first receive disclosures in writing from the employer or agency; in order to actually acquire the account, consumers either go online or call a customer service line. The issuing bank also expressed concern about the cost to some employers and agencies to train their customer service representatives to provide disclosures orally by telephone or to update their websites to accommodate the requirements set forth in the 2016 Final Rule for electronic disclosures, particularly when written disclosures are already being provided under existing practice to the consumer in advance of acquisition.
In light of these concerns, the Bureau proposed to revise § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(B) and (C) and comment 18(b)(6)(i)(B)-1 to make clear that financial institutions are permitted to provide written disclosures prior to acquisition rather than having to give the disclosures electronically or orally by telephone. The Bureau also proposed to add new comment 18(b)(6)(i)-1 to illustrate this proposed revision in the payroll card account context. Specifically, the proposed comment would have given an example stating that, if an employer distributes to new employees printed copies of the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) for a payroll card account, together with instructions to complete the payroll card account acquisition process online if the employee wishes to be paid via a payroll card account, the financial institution is not required to provide the § 1005.18(b) disclosures electronically via the website because the consumer has already received the disclosures pre-acquisition in written form. The Bureau believed that the proposed clarification would alleviate the concern described above without harm to consumers, because the requirement to provide consumers with the disclosures before
Several industry commenters, including trade associations and an issuing bank, supported the proposed changes to § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(B) and (C) and related commentary. The issuing bank stated that the proposed revisions would illustrate the value of printed materials and allow financial institutions and third parties to leverage the existing practice of providing consumers with a printed copy of the initial disclosures before asking whether they want to acquire the prepaid account. One of the trade associations stated that printed disclosures are likely more effective and accurate than oral disclosures (especially if they are lengthy) because consumers would have more time to review them. Another trade association stated that providing disclosures electronically or orally when they have already been provided in printed form would be inconvenient, redundant, and costly and would provide little consumer benefit. This commenter further stated that redundancies would burden the enrollment process and could negatively impact employees' perception of the payroll card option.
These commenters also offered a few suggested changes. Specifically, one of the trade associations stated that the final rule should not use the term “written” to distinguish printed disclosures from electronic disclosures because electronic disclosures are written disclosures, as recognized by numerous regulations, including Regulation E. This commenter suggested that the Bureau instead refer to the written disclosures as “printed” or “paper” disclosures, which it believed would avoid any potential confusion. In addition, the issuing bank and another trade association recommended modifying comments 18(b)(1)(iii)-1 and 2 to conform to the proposed changes in § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(B) and (C).
The Bureau did not receive any comments opposing this aspect of the proposal.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(B) and (C) and comment 18(b)(6)(i)(B)-1 and adopting new comment 18(b)(6)(i)-1 as proposed. Final § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(B) and (C) make clear that financial institutions are permitted to provide written disclosures prior to acquisition rather than having to give the disclosures electronically or orally by telephone. The Bureau continues to believe it is important for consumers to receive pre-acquisition disclosures via the method by which they acquire a prepaid account. As noted above, however, the Bureau also believes that consumers can best review the terms of a prepaid account before acquiring it when seeing the terms in written form. The Bureau appreciates the concerns raised by commenters regarding providing electronic or oral disclosures in this context, and believes that if written pre-acquisition disclosures are provided, it is not necessary to also require electronic and oral disclosures.
In addition, as suggested by one of the commenters, the Bureau is modifying comment 18(b)(1)(iii)-2, renumbered as new comment 18(b)(6)(i)(C)-1, for consistency with final § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(C). The Bureau does not believe a similar modification to comment 18(b)(1)(iii)-1 is necessary as the purpose of that comment is to illustrate when a prepaid account is acquired orally by telephone; it does not discuss the disclosures required for accounts acquired in that manner. Regarding the suggestion from one of the trade associations to refer to the written disclosures as “printed” or “paper” disclosures, the Bureau notes that comment 18(b)-1 explains that because electronic disclosures need not meet the consumer consent or other applicable provisions of the E-Sign Act, § 1005.18(b) addresses certain requirements for written and electronic disclosures separately. This usage of the terms “written” and “electronic” is also consistent with, for example, the periodic statement alternative that is currently in effect for payroll cards under existing § 1005.18 as well as the modified version for prepaid accounts in the 2016 Final Rule. Therefore, the Bureau does not believe it is necessary to change the term “written” disclosure to “printed” or “paper” disclosure and is concerned that doing so might result in additional complexities in the rule and create confusion regarding other uses of the term “written” in the Prepaid Accounts Rule.
The Bureau is also making technical corrections in the last sentence of § 1005.18(b)(6)(i)(C) to correct grammar and a cross-reference (changing “disclosures” to “the disclosure” and “(b)(1)(ii)(B)” to “(b)(1)(ii)(C)”).
Section 1005.18(b)(9)(i) requires a financial institution to provide the pre-acquisition disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) in a foreign language if the financial institution uses that same foreign language in connection with the acquisition of a prepaid account in certain circumstances. Specifically, the financial institution must provide the disclosures in a foreign language if it principally uses a foreign language on the prepaid account packaging material; it principally uses a foreign language to advertise, solicit, or market a prepaid account and provides a means in the advertisement, solicitation, or marketing material that the consumer uses to acquire the prepaid account by telephone or electronically; or it provides a means for the consumer to acquire a prepaid account by telephone or electronically principally in a foreign language. Section 1005.18(b)(9)(ii) requires financial institutions providing the disclosures in a foreign language pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(9)(i) to also provide the information required to be disclosed in the long form pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(4) in English upon a consumer's request and on any part of the website where it discloses this information in a foreign language.
As discussed in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau believed that, if a financial institution affirmatively targets consumers by advertising, soliciting, or marketing to them in a foreign language, principally uses a foreign language on the interface that a consumer sees or uses to initiate the process of acquiring a prepaid account, or provides a way for a consumer to acquire a prepaid account in a foreign language, the financial institution is making a deliberate effort to obtain the consumer's business using a foreign language and therefore should be required to provide the pre-acquisition disclosures in that foreign language. The Bureau believed that requiring financial institutions to provide pre-acquisition disclosures in a foreign language is appropriate in the circumstances described above to ensure that non- and limited-English speaking consumers are able to
During its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation, the Bureau discussed with an issuing bank its experiences with employers and government agencies that contract with third parties to provide real-time oral language interpretation services in order to facilitate general processes administered by the employer (such as new employee on-boarding) or agency (enrollment in a benefits program), which may include acquisition of a prepaid account. The issuing bank expressed concern that use of these language interpretation services, although generally beneficial to affected consumers, may potentially present difficulties in providing interpretations of the required disclosures to consumers in foreign languages, while also increasing costs for the employer or agency due to longer call times.
The issuing bank explained that these language interpretation services allow consumers to choose from more than one hundred languages, though the employer or agency may not know it will need interpretation services in a particular language until a consumer requests it. The issuing bank emphasized that it is not involved in selecting the third parties providing language interpretation services that employers and government agencies might use as part of their general enrollment processes, and that the interpreters, who are hired to provide language interpretation services only, may not have any particular experience with financial disclosures. The issuing bank also stated that it would not be able to ensure that the long form disclosures, translated into every possible foreign language that could be selected by a consumer, could be provided either electronically (pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(1)(iii)(B)) or in writing (pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(1)(iii)(C)) to the consumer.
The Bureau thus proposed revisions to § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) to provide an exception that would cover the situation described above regarding language interpretation services. Specifically, proposed § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) would have stated that financial institutions must provide the pre-acquisition disclosures in a foreign language in connection with the acquisition of a prepaid account if the financial institution provides a means for the consumer to acquire a prepaid account by telephone or electronically principally in a foreign language, except for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts where the foreign language is offered by telephone only via a real-time language interpretation service provided by a third party.
Several industry commenters, including trade associations, an issuing bank, and a program manager, supported the proposed revisions to § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C), stating that without an exception for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts acquired using a real-time language interpretation service provided by a third party, the costs and compliance risk associated with the Prepaid Accounts Rule's foreign language requirement would cause entities to stop offering certain foreign language services to the detriment of non- and limited-English speaking consumers. The issuing bank and one of the trade associations asserted that the rule's original requirement would make compliance virtually impossible because government agencies would have to anticipate all the languages that might be requested by consumers in order to provide properly translated disclosures in accordance with the Prepaid Accounts Rule's timing requirements. A group of consumer advocates stated that they did not object to the narrow exclusion proposed by the Bureau. The program manager urged the Bureau to extend the proposed exception to all prepaid products.
In response to the Bureau's request for comment regarding whether it should completely exclude payroll card accounts or government benefit accounts from the § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) requirement, a trade association representing community banks argued that a complete exclusion would be the only meaningful way to eliminate obstacles associated with having to provide foreign language disclosures to payroll card and government benefit account holders. This commenter asserted that community banks are not suited to finance, implement, manage, and guarantee a third party's ability to accurately interpret and provide real-time financial disclosures pertaining to prepaid accounts, and that these issues exist regardless of who delivers the disclosures. In contrast, the group of consumer advocates argued that payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts should not have a categorical exclusion because employees and government benefit recipients that are being solicited to open a payroll card account or government benefit account in a foreign language should receive the pre-acquisition disclosures in that language.
In response to the Bureau's request for comment about whether there are other ways the Bureau might address the issues related to language interpretation services explained above, several of these commenters stated that the proposed exception in § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) should be expanded to include foreign language assistance offered by internal resources, not just third parties. One of the trade associations also urged the Bureau to clarify that the § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) requirement would not be triggered if the financial institution does not formally offer language interpretation services in connection with telephone acquisition of prepaid accounts but an employee provides informal foreign language assistance during the acquisition process, because in this case, the financial institution is not affirmatively targeting the consumer in a foreign language. It explained that language interpretation for onboarding employees and enrolling consumers in payroll card or government benefit programs is not always performed by a third party, and that employees occasionally use their language skills to provide translation and interpretation services for consumers without explicit instruction from their employer to do so. It also stated that, unless the exception is modified, employers and government agencies would likely discourage or even prohibit their employees from offering informal assistance and instead use a third-party language interpretation service in order to qualify for the exception, which would be detrimental to consumers who benefit from immediate foreign language assistance and would create unnecessary impediments to the employers and agencies.
In addition, one of the trade associations and the issuing bank requested that the Bureau consider clarifying that a third party's (
Relatedly, the issuing bank requested that the Bureau consider clarifying that certain State-required pre-acquisition disclosures for payroll card accounts would not implicate the advertising, soliciting, and marketing trigger under § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(B). This commenter expressed concern that employee onboarding materials translated pursuant to State law could be deemed a solicitation under § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(B) if such material includes information about how to acquire the payroll card account by telephone or electronically, thus requiring financial institutions to provide pre-acquisition disclosures in a foreign language. This commenter explained that financial institutions might not be made aware of such scenarios and, even if they are, may not have enough lead time to respond appropriately. This commenter further stated that because accurate translations take time to develop, it believes that card acquisition delays could result and engender claims of disparate treatment by non-English speaking employees.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revision to § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) with an additional clarification regarding informal or ad hoc telephone conversations, as described below. Specifically, final § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) provides that foreign language pre-acquisition disclosures are required when a financial institution provides a means for the consumer to acquire a prepaid account by telephone or electronically principally in a foreign language. However, foreign language pre-acquisition disclosures are not required for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts where the foreign language is offered by telephone via a real-time language interpretation service provided by a third party or by an employer or government agency on an informal or ad hoc basis as an accommodation to prospective payroll card account or government benefit account holders. Relatedly, the Bureau is adding a cross-reference to final § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) in comments 18(b)(9)-1.i.E and ii.B, which set forth examples regarding acquisition of prepaid accounts by telephone. The Bureau is also making a technical correction in comment 18(b)(9)-1 introductory text to correct a cross-reference (changing “§ 1005.18(b)(2) of this section” to “§ 1005.18(b)”).
In addition, the Bureau is adopting new comment 18(b)(9)-1.ii.D to provide an example of an informal telephone conversation that would not trigger the requirement in final § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C). New comment 18(b)(9)-1.ii.D provides the following example of a situation in which the financial institution would not be required to provide the pre-acquisition disclosures in a foreign language: A consumer calls a government agency to enroll in a government benefits program. The government agency does not offer through its telephone system an option for consumers to proceed in a foreign language. An employee of the government agency assists the consumer with the enrollment process, including helping the consumer acquire a government benefits account. The employee also happens to speak the foreign language in which the consumer is most comfortable communicating, and chooses to communicate with the consumer in that language to facilitate the enrollment process. In this case, the employee offered language interpretation assistance on an informal or ad hoc basis to accommodate the prospective government benefits account holder.
The Bureau intended the foreign language requirements to cover situations where a financial institution affirmatively targets consumers in a foreign language, including providing the means to acquire a prepaid account by telephone in that foreign language. However, the Bureau believes that the situations described by industry stakeholders regarding real-time language interpretation services offered over the telephone by a third party for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts—as well as informal interpretation assistance provided by employees of an employer or government agency—are distinct, particularly to the extent they involve providing such services in the course of facilitating more general processes by an employer or government agency, such as the onboarding of a new employee or enrollment of a consumer in a benefits program. With respect to informal and ad hoc telephone assistance, the Bureau understands, based on comments received from industry, that such conversations may occur over the telephone in a foreign language, where the employer or government agency itself (rather than a third party) is communicating in a foreign language as an accommodation to prospective payroll card account or government benefit account holders. The Bureau is thus adopting language in final § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) providing that such activities do not trigger the § 1005.18(b)(9)(i) requirement to provide pre-acquisition disclosures in a foreign language. The Bureau remains concerned that applying the foreign language disclosure requirements of § 1005.18(b)(9)(i) in such circumstances might discourage employers and agencies from making language interpretation services available at all.
Nonetheless, the Bureau does not believe it would be appropriate to completely exclude payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts from the foreign language disclosure requirements of § 1005.18(b)(9) as requested by one commenter. When prospective payroll card account or government benefit account holders are affirmatively targeted in a foreign language, the Bureau continues to believe it is appropriate to require the financial institution to provide foreign language pre-acquisition disclosures in accordance with § 1005.18(b)(9)(i).
The Bureau believes the modifications made in final § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) sufficiently address the specific concerns raised by industry. The exception regarding real-time language interpretation services offered over the telephone by a third party addresses industry concerns about the costs and operational challenges associated with providing the pre-acquisition disclosures for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts in any language a consumer could select through a third-party language interpretation service, including concerns that financial institutions would be unable to ensure the disclosures are interpreted accurately or provided to the consumer in accordance with § 1005.18(b)(1)(iii)(B) and (C). In addition, the exception regarding assistance offered on an informal or ad hoc basis as an accommodation to prospective payroll card account or
Furthermore, the Bureau is not excluding any other type of prepaid account from the § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C) requirement at this time, as requested by one commenter, because the Bureau is not persuaded that financial institutions are likely to face the same challenges related to language interpretation services outside the payroll and government benefit context.
The Bureau declines to clarify, as one commenter suggested, that providing certain State-required pre-acquisition disclosures for payroll card accounts would not implicate the advertising, soliciting, and marketing trigger for providing foreign language disclosures. The Bureau does not believe that such a blanket clarification would be appropriate; if State-required disclosures rise to the level of principal usage of a foreign language in advertising, soliciting, or marketing a payroll card account (or any other type of prepaid account), the Bureau believes that consumers deserve to have the full pre-acquisition disclosures for that account provided in that foreign language.
Regarding a related issue raised by two commenters, the Bureau agrees that the foreign language activity of a third party that is wholly unrelated to a financial institution's prepaid accounts should not implicate the financial institution's obligations under the Prepaid Accounts Rule. However, the Bureau does not believe that a modification to the regulatory text or commentary of the rule is necessary on this point as the rule is targeted to address situations involving use of foreign languages on the prepaid account packaging material, in advertising, solicitation, or marketing, and in electronic or telephonic acquisition processes.
As discussed in detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1005.18(e)(3) below, the Bureau is making certain changes regarding error resolution and limited liability requirements to address concerns about the treatment of unverified prepaid accounts. Relatedly, the Bureau is amending § 1005.18(d)(1)(ii), which requires certain disclosures regarding error resolution. One prepaid issuer commented in support of this aspect of the proposal; no other commenters addressed this provision specifically. The Bureau is thus finalizing these amendments as proposed.
EFTA section 905(a)(7) requires financial institutions to provide a summary of the error resolution provisions in EFTA section 908 and the consumer's rights thereunder as part of the initial disclosures and on an annual basis thereafter.
Specifically, the Bureau is amending § 1005.18(d)(1)(ii) to clarify that, for prepaid account programs for which the financial institution does not have a consumer identification and verification process, the financial institution must describe its error resolution process and limitations on consumers' liability for unauthorized transfers or, if none, state that there are no such protections. The revisions to § 1005.18(e)(3), discussed below, will not require a financial institution to offer limited liability and error resolution protections on prepaid accounts in a program for which the financial institution does not have a consumer identification and verification process. The clarification in § 1005.18(d)(1)(ii) is intended to ensure that financial institutions accurately disclose to consumers the limited liability and error resolution protections (if any) that would apply to any such prepaid account in their initial disclosures.
EFTA section 908 governs the timing and other requirements for consumers and financial institutions pertaining to error resolution, including provisional credit.
The Bureau altered its approach in the 2016 Final Rule in several respects, drawing on two primary sources of information. The first was its analysis of 325 prepaid account agreements, in which the Bureau found that a large majority of the agreements reviewed purported to offer Regulation E error resolution and limited liability protections.
Based on concerns raised by industry during the Bureau's outreach efforts regarding implementation and in connection with the 2017 Effective Date Proposal,
Proposed § 1005.18(e)(3)(iii) would have provided that, once a financial institution successfully completes its consumer identification and verification process with respect to a prepaid account, the financial institution must limit the consumer's liability for unauthorized transfers and resolve errors that occurred prior to verification with respect to any unauthorized transfers or other errors that satisfy the timing requirements of § 1005.6 or § 1005.11, or the modified timing requirements in § 1005.18(e), as applicable.
The Bureau also proposed changes to the commentary accompanying § 1005.18(e). The proposed revisions to comment 18(e)-4 would have aligned it with the proposed text of § 1005.18(e)(3) as well as added commentary from the 2014 Proposal to explain that, for an unauthorized transfer or other error asserted on a previously unverified prepaid account, whether a consumer has timely reported the unauthorized transfer or other error would be based
The Bureau also proposed to revise comments 18(e)-5 and 6 to more closely align with the proposed text of § 1005.18(e)(3) and to clarify the example provided in comment 18(e)-5 illustrating a situation where a financial institution has not successfully completed its consumer identification and verification process. Proposed comment 18(e)-5 would have continued to make clear that financial institutions may not delay completing their consumer identification and verification processes or refuse to verify a consumer's identity in order to avoid investigating an error asserted by a consumer.
The Bureau received a number of comments on its proposed revisions to the error resolution and limited liability regime for prepaid accounts. Industry commenters (including trade associations, issuing banks, program managers, and others) as well as a think tank supported the Bureau's proposal to except prepaid accounts that have not successfully completed the consumer identification and verification process from error resolution and limited liability requirements to the extent such accounts remain unverified.
Several commenters stated that financial institutions' error resolution procedures often require comparison of information provided by the consumer when asserting an error with information previously provided by the consumer to the financial institution (for example, by matching the purchaser's name and shipping address for an online purchase with the consumer's information on file with the financial institution); such information would not be available if the identification and verification process has not been completed.
Commenters also asserted that the provision in the 2016 Final Rule excepting unverified accounts from the provisional credit requirement does not provide meaningful relief because financial institutions often are ultimately unable to establish whether a given transaction on an unverified account was in fact unauthorized. Under EFTA section 909(b), the burden of proof is on the financial institution to show that an alleged error was in fact an authorized transaction; if the financial institution cannot establish proof of valid authorization, the financial institution must credit the consumer's account. These commenters concluded that the rule would therefore increase financial institutions' fraud protection and mitigation costs.
A trade association predicted that, if required to resolve errors on unverified prepaid accounts that allow immediate access to funds, financial institutions would likely issue refunds on disputed transactions via paper check rather than by refunding directly to the prepaid account in order to avoid fraud and having to recredit accounts for alleged unauthorized transactions that the financial institution does not have sufficient information to investigate. However, issuing refunds by paper check would increase financial institutions' costs and delay consumers' receipt of refunds.
In response to the Bureau's proposal to require financial institutions to limit consumers' liability for unauthorized transfers and their obligation to resolve errors that occurred prior to verification for accounts that are subsequently verified (subject to the timing requirements of § 1005.6 or § 1005.11, or the modified timing requirements in § 1005.18(e), as applicable), several industry commenters urged the Bureau to further limit the scope of pre-verification transactions subject to Regulation E error resolution and limited liability protections.
A number of industry commenters requested that the Bureau only require error resolution and limited liability protections for transactions that take place within a specified time period (generally 30 days) prior to either the consumer's initial submission of registration information or successful completion of the consumer identification and verification process. Several of these commenters stated that requiring error resolution and limited liability protections over a longer time period increases the potential for fraud losses because investigation becomes increasingly difficult as time goes on; a trade association suggested that financial institutions may not have access to information necessary to investigate errors that occur on unverified accounts more than 30 days prior to assertion of the error. A prepaid issuer and a trade association suggested in their comment letters that, because the vast majority of consumers who ever register a prepaid account do so within 30 days after acquiring the account, a 30-day cap would cover most consumers who ultimately successfully complete the identification and verification process. The same issuer and two trade associations also suggested that a prepaid account may be used by multiple individuals prior to verification, which could further complicate subsequent investigations.
Other industry commenters suggested that the Bureau exclude from the rule's error resolution and limited liability protections all transactions that occur prior to either the consumer's initial submission of information or successful completion of the consumer identification and verification process, rather than upon the consumer's acquisition of the account. Several of these commenters stated that because financial institutions rely on verified consumer information to identify fraudulent transactions when they are attempted, it would be inherently more difficult for financial institutions to limit their fraud exposure on pre-verification transactions, even for accounts that are ultimately verified. Specifically, a program manager commented that fraudsters may use stolen identities to complete the registration process, which may go undetected for an extended period; this would allow those fraudsters to collect provisional credits on pre-verification transactions that are fraudulently asserted as erroneous. A business advocacy group and a trade association both suggested that financial institutions would not be able to meet the Regulation E timing requirements for errors that occur before registration is completed, thus requiring financial institutions to provide refunds even on
Consumer advocates did not oppose the Bureau's proposal, but did urge the Bureau to expressly deem certain types of prepaid accounts registered and verified upon issuance in order to make clear such accounts were not eligible for the proposed exception. For example, a group of consumer advocates suggested that where the person to whom a prepaid account is issued is known to the furnisher of the account (including, they urged, prepaid accounts used to pay individuals for jury service, prison release cards, and utility refunds), the prepaid account should be deemed to have successfully completed the consumer identification and verification process because the furnisher already has significant information about the consumer. Another consumer advocate urged the Bureau to deem prison release cards to have successfully completed the consumer identification and verification process upon issuance, both because the correctional facility or law enforcement agency already has significant information about that person and because, this commenter contended, people who have recently been released from prison or jail are particularly likely to lack regular and reliable access to a telephone or the internet, making prompt registration of this type of prepaid account prohibitively difficult.
A program manager and a trade association both urged the Bureau not to adopt the alternative approach described in the proposal, in which the Bureau considered whether it might be appropriate to apply a different standard to prepaid accounts for which a consumer has attempted but failed to complete the consumer identification and verification process. These commenters noted the difficulty, identified in the proposal, in determining whether a consumer has definitively “failed to complete” the process, as opposed there being a delay in the consumer's providing information requested by the financial institution that is needed to complete the process. They also suggested that “failed to complete” accounts may in fact be particularly susceptible to fraudulent activity because, in many cases, they represent instances where the financial institution's fraud prevention protocols have detected a higher likelihood of an attempted fraudulent registration (such as, for example, the provided name and address not matching public records).
Commenters also raised issues related to error resolution and limited liability issues addressed by the 2016 Final Rule but outside the scope of the June 2017 Proposal. Specifically, a trade association requested that the Bureau make several modifications to the error resolution and limited liability protections applied to prepaid accounts after they have successfully completed the financial institution's consumer identification and verification process (rather than before, which was the subject of the proposal). Separately, an anonymous commenter stated that financial institutions should incur full liability for any error that is not resolved within 30 days.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to § 1005.18(e)(3)(iii) and comment 18(e)-4 with substantial modification; § 1005.18(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii), and (e)(3)(ii)(C) and comment 18(e)-5 are finalized as proposed; and comment 18(e)-6 is finalized as proposed with one minor revision for consistency. The final rule provides that for prepaid accounts that are not payroll card accounts or government benefit accounts, a financial institution is not required to comply with the liability limits and error resolution requirements in §§ 1005.6 and 1005.11 for any prepaid account for which it has not successfully completed its consumer identification and verification process. Unlike the proposal, the final rule does not require financial institutions to limit liability or resolve errors that occurred prior to verification on accounts that are later successfully verified.
The changes to § 1005.18(e)(3)(iii) revise the paragraph heading and text to provide that once a financial institution successfully completes its consumer identification and verification process with respect to a prepaid account, the financial institution must limit the consumer's liability for unauthorized transfers and resolve errors that occur following verification in accordance with § 1005.6 or § 1005.11, or the modified timing requirements in this paragraph (e), as applicable. The revisions to comment 18(e)-4 parallel the revisions in § 1005.18(e)(3)(iii), and explain that a financial institution is not required to limit a consumer's liability for unauthorized transfers or resolve errors that occur prior to the financial institution's successful completion of its consumer identification and verification process with respect to a prepaid account. The Bureau is not finalizing the proposed text that would have clarified the timelines associated with Regulation E's error resolution and limited liability provisions on pre-verification transactions, as it is no longer necessary in light of the other changes to § 1005.18(e)(3).
To further the purposes of EFTA to provide a framework to establish the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of prepaid account consumers and to facilitate compliance with its provisions, the Bureau believes it is necessary and proper to exercise its authority under EFTA section 904(c) to revise § 1005.18(e)(3) to except accounts that have not successfully completed the consumer identification and verification process from the error resolution and limited liability requirements of EFTA sections 908 and 909. The Bureau continues to believe that providing error resolution and limited liability rights to consumers even on unverified accounts would be beneficial to consumers, and remains concerned, as it expressed in the June 2017 Proposal, that consumers with prepaid accounts that have not been or cannot be verified will not have a right to Regulation E error resolution and limited liability protections. However, absent the change made in this final rule, the Bureau is also concerned that financial institutions' fear of fraud losses in connection with the 2016 Final Rule would prompt them to stop offering prepaid accounts at retail that allow for immediate access to funds, to begin providing refunds for accounts that fail verification via paper check (thus delaying consumers' ability to access their funds), or to make other changes to their programs that would decrease the availability or utility of prepaid accounts to consumers.
Specifically, the Bureau believes that consumers can obtain substantial benefits from those prepaid products that provide immediate functionality upon purchase at retail. However, such benefits would be lost if such products are no longer offered because of fraud concerns. Similarly, consumers who purchase prepaid products but are not able to complete the consumer identification and verification process successfully could be subject to a period of financial disruption if they are required to wait for a return of their funds by check. For example, consider a consumer who loads funds into a new prepaid account and is subsequently unable to successfully complete the financial institution's consumer identification and verification process. Under current industry practice, many financial institutions allow those consumers to spend down the funds that have been loaded into the account in this situation. But if the financial institution were to deactivate the prepaid card and provide a refund in this situation via paper check, the consumer would be unable to access those funds until receiving the check, which is likely to take at least several business days. Furthermore, the consumer may encounter difficulties in receiving the refund check if the consumer lacks a fixed address, and may incur fees to cash the refund check.
The Bureau is also aware that consumers use prepaid accounts for a variety of reasons, and that consumers who do not wish to submit their personal information for verification or who may not be able to have their identities verified would have few other options if financial institutions stop allowing any functionality prior to successful verification. Such consumers could choose instead to use open loop gift cards,
Accordingly, to avoid such outcomes, the Bureau concludes that it is appropriate to not require compliance with Regulation E error resolution and limited liability provisions with regard to transactions on prepaid accounts that have not been or cannot be verified. Although the Bureau proposed to require financial institutions to comply with these requirements once an account has been successfully verified with regard to transactions that occurred prior to the completion of the verification process, the Bureau has concluded based on information presented in the comments and further analysis that a requirement to do so in all circumstances could present complications and fraud risks that may not be justified by the potential benefits. The Bureau is aware that some financial institutions provide limited liability and error resolution protections (though perhaps without provisional credit) on unverified accounts, for pre-verification transactions, or both, as matter of contract or customer service.
In particular, the Bureau believes, based on comments received and its understanding of the market, that the impact on consumers of this change from the June 2017 Proposal should be extremely limited for several reasons. First, the only accounts at issue here are those that consumers acquire before the financial institution conducts its consumer identification and verification process (generally, prepaid accounts sold at retail). Second, in most prepaid programs where accounts are acquired prior to verification, consumers must attempt the identification and verification process before they can use the account; verification generally occurs in the course of the initial activation phone call or website visit, so consumers whose identities are successfully verified will thus complete the process prior to using the prepaid account and therefore should be unaffected by this change.
Other factors also limit potential losses to consumers. For example, as noted above, the Bureau understands that, for a variety of reasons—including FinCEN's Prepaid Access Rule and the payment card networks' operating rules—the consumer identification and verification process is almost always performed before a card can be reloaded, used to make cash withdrawals, or used to receive cash back at the point of sale. Thus, even for consumers with prepaid accounts that can be used prior to attempting or completing verification, disputes are generally limited to purchase transactions because other functions (such as reloads and ATM withdrawals) are not typically permitted prior to verification. Additionally, consumers' potential losses from pre-verification errors will be, at most, the amount of the initial load, which the Bureau understands to generally be limited to a maximum of $500, and in practice often may be significantly less. Thus, the Bureau believes that, in the current market, both the frequency and magnitude of pre-verification errors are low for these accounts. More broadly, the Bureau intends to engage in market monitoring to assess the impact on both financial institutions and consumers of not requiring limited liability and error resolution protections on unverified prepaid accounts.
At the same time, commenters on the June 2017 Proposal expressed concern that a rigid requirement to provide Regulation E limited liability and error resolution rights in connection with all transactions that occur prior to a successful registration could attract more first-party fraud attempts and create complexity and uncertainty for issuers. As noted above, several of these commenters stated that because financial institutions rely on information about consumers obtained during the identification and verification process to identify fraudulent transactions when they are attempted, it would be inherently more difficult for financial institutions to limit their fraud exposure on pre-verification transactions, even for accounts that are ultimately verified.
The Bureau considered requiring financial institutions to provide error resolution and limited liability protections on transactions occurring up to 30 days prior to verification, as suggested by some commenters. While the Bureau appreciates that a 30-day “lookback” period may allow some consumers on the margins to resolve pre-verification errors, the small number of accounts that would be implicated would limit the value of this protection, while adding additional complexity to the regulation with a new time period and exposing financial institutions to some potential losses from first-party fraud. On balance, the Bureau believes that a bright-line test based on successful verification of the prepaid account will simplify compliance without significantly increasing costs to consumers. In addition, requiring error resolution and limited liability protections only for post-verification errors aligns the treatment of prepaid accounts with the treatment of traditional checking accounts under Federal anti-money laundering requirements, where identifying information must be collected from the consumer before the account is opened and verification must be complete at the same time or shortly thereafter.
With respect to industry commenters' suggestions that the Bureau encourage consumers to register prepaid accounts more quickly rather than require error resolution and limited liability protections on pre-verification transactions, or that the Bureau's proposal would have led to consumers being rewarded for failing to register their accounts, the Bureau agrees that prompt registration of prepaid accounts provides important benefits to consumers (even beyond this aspect of the rule). The Bureau expects that the pre-acquisition disclosures regarding registration and deposit insurance, pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2)(xi) and (b)(4)(iii), will help encourage consumers to register their prepaid accounts promptly. This final rule makes prompt registration even more important for consumers, and the Bureau encourages financial institutions to continue to promote to consumers the benefits of registering their accounts promptly (including the availability of error resolution and limited liability protections).
The Bureau also considered imposing a requirement that financial institutions additionally disclose any process they do have for investigating and resolving pre-verification errors, similar to the requirement in final § 1005.18(d)(1)(ii) that financial institutions disclose, for prepaid account programs with no consumer identification and verification process, their error resolution process and limitations on consumers' liability for unauthorized transfers, if any. However, the Bureau is concerned that imposing such an additional disclosure requirement for prepaid accounts more generally might have the unintended effect of discouraging financial institutions from offering any assistance to consumers regarding concerns with pre-verification issues, to the extent that institutions had previously provided such assistance on a discretionary basis.
The Bureau agrees with industry commenters that urged the Bureau not to adopt the alternative approach described in the proposal, which would have created a third category of error resolution and limited liability protections for accounts that have begun, but failed to successfully complete, the financial institution's consumer identification and verification process. As the Bureau noted in the proposal, adding a third category of accounts would increase the complexity of the rule, and it may be difficult for financial institutions to distinguish between a consumer's failure to complete the verification process and a consumer who is merely delayed in providing additional requested information. The Bureau also appreciates the concerns raised by commenters that “failed to complete” accounts may in fact be disproportionately likely to be involved in fraudulent activity, because many accounts that fail to complete verification do so based on the financial institution's fraud prevention protocols. Accordingly, the Bureau is not adopting this alternative approach.
With respect to the comments raised by consumer advocates regarding whether certain types of prepaid accounts should be deemed verified at issuance, the Bureau notes that final comment 18(e)-6 provides that a financial institution that collects and verifies consumer identifying information, or that obtains such information after it has been collected and verified by a third party, prior to or as part of the account acquisition process, is deemed to have successfully completed its consumer identification and verification process with respect to that account. While the comment provides one example of a situation where that condition is met, that example is not intended to be exclusive. Thus, while the Bureau is not further modifying the text of § 1005.18(e)(3) or comment 18(e)-6, the Bureau emphasizes that, where the conditions described in that comment are met, a financial institution is deemed to have successfully completed its consumer identification and verification process with respect to that account upon issuance of the account. The Bureau believes that, in at least some cases, the types of prepaid accounts mentioned by consumer advocates (including prison release cards) will in fact meet the conditions described in comment18(e)-6.
As discussed in detail in part VI below, the Bureau is extending the overall effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to April 1, 2019. Section 1005.18(h) includes several transitional exceptions and accommodations related to the effective date. The Bureau is revising dates in the regulatory text and headings throughout § 1005.18(h) and in comments 18(h)-1, 2, and 6 to reflect the new April 1, 2019 effective date.
The Bureau is also making several technical corrections in § 1005.18(h) and related commentary. First, the Bureau is revising comment 18(h)-2 for clarity and to conform with usage of terms elsewhere in that comment and in the regulatory text (changing “disclosures and access devices” to “disclosures on, in, or with access devices or packaging materials” in the last sentence). Finally, the Bureau is revising comment 18(h)-5 to clarify the provision to which that comment is
Section 1005.19 requires prepaid account issuers to post and submit agreements to the Bureau, pursuant to the Bureau's authority under EFTA sections 904(c) and 905(a) and sections 1022(c)(4) and 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Section 1005.19(b)(1) requires issuers to make submissions of prepaid account agreements to the Bureau on a rolling basis, in the form and manner specified by the Bureau. Submissions must be made to the Bureau no later than 30 days after an issuer offers, amends, or ceases to offer a prepaid account agreement and must contain certain information, including other relevant parties to the agreement (such as the employer for a payroll card program).
As explained in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau learned through its outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation that some industry stakeholders were concerned about needing to notify the Bureau every time relevant parties to a prepaid account agreement are added or removed; this concern was particularly acute for payroll card accounts. The Bureau understands that while payroll card issuers may customize some payroll card programs for specific employers, payroll card issuers often use a standard account agreement with multiple employers, so that they may add or remove employers without changing the agreement itself. Some stakeholders explained that changes to the list of these employers as relevant parties to the agreement might occur on a somewhat frequent basis, and they expressed concern about continually needing to notify the Bureau of these changes.
Although the Bureau continues to believe that information about other relevant parties to agreements will be useful to the Bureau, consumers, and others, the Bureau acknowledged in the June 2017 Proposal that reporting frequent changes of relevant parties to an agreement for an otherwise unchanging agreement could be time consuming for some issuers.
The Bureau proposed to revise § 1005.19(b)(2) to provide that an issuer may delay submitting a change in the names of other relevant parties to an agreement until such time as the issuer is submitting an amended agreement pursuant to § 1005.19(b)(2) or changes to other identifying information about the issuer and its submitted agreements pursuant to § 1005.19(b)(1)(i), in lieu of submitting such a change no later than 30 days after the change becomes effective. The Bureau also proposed to revise comment 19(a)(2)-1.vii to add a reference to § 1005.19(b)(2) regarding the timing of submitting such changes to the Bureau. The Bureau also requested, but did not receive, comment on whether there are any alternative approaches the Bureau might adopt to reduce burden on issuers while still ensuring that information about other relevant parties is submitted in a timely manner, such as by requiring submission of updated information on other relevant parties at least once per quarter.
A number of industry commenters, including trade associations, a program manager, an issuing bank, and a think tank, supported the proposed revisions to § 1005.19(b)(2). Specifically, several of these commenters stated that the proposed revisions would facilitate compliance and help reduce the cost and burden of having to make a submission every time they made changes to the other relevant parties to an agreement where the agreement itself is not amended. In addition, the issuing bank commenter confirmed that, because issuers frequently offer a single payroll card program to multiple employers (or similar third parties), the requirement in the 2016 Final Rule, if left unchanged, would trigger constant filings with the Bureau because in some cases issuers add employers to these types of programs on a weekly basis.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing § 1005.19(b)(2) with modifications as described below. First, the Bureau is bifurcating the requirements of § 1005.19(b)(2) into final § 1005.19(b)(2)(i), which sets forth the requirements for the submission of amended agreements generally, and final § 1005.19(b)(2)(ii), which sets forth the requirements for the submission of updated lists of names of other relevant parties,
The Bureau continues to believe that revisions to § 1005.19(b)(2) are warranted to address the concerns raised by industry related to the requirement that an issuer update its submission to the Bureau each time there is a change to the list of names of other relevant parties to an agreement. At the same time, the Bureau is cognizant of the necessity for industry to provide timely information in order for their submissions to be useful to the Bureau, consumers, and other interested parties. As noted above, the Bureau sought comment on alternative approaches the Bureau might adopt to reduce burden on issuers while still ensuring that information about other relevant parties is submitted in a timely manner, such as by requiring submission of updated information on other relevant parties at least once per quarter. Although the Bureau received no responses to that solicitation for comment, it has continued its own analysis. Upon further consideration, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to include an annual backstop as part of this accommodation, ensuing that the Bureau will have reasonably up-to-date information about other relevant parties to all prepaid account agreements while still permitting issuers to delay submitting changes to the list of names of other relevant parties to an agreement beyond 30 days after the change becomes effective.
Thus, in most cases, what triggers the requirement to make a submission regarding the names of other relevant parties to a particular prepaid account agreement is a substantive change to the content of the agreement itself or the identifying information enumerated in § 1005.19(b)(1)(i) other than the names of other relevant parties to the agreement. Amendments to one agreement submitted to the Bureau do not trigger the requirement to submit updated lists of the names of other relevant parties to all the issuers' agreements. Issuers may, but are not required to, submit changes to the list of names of other relevant parties to an agreement within 30 days of the change becoming effective (that is, following the same schedule as for submitting other changes to the Bureau). However, in situations in which the Bureau does not have an up-to-date relevant party list from the issuer as of April 1 of a given year, the issuer must provide such updates by May 1 of that year.
The 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1005.19(b)(6)(ii) stated that fee information must be set forth either in the prepaid account agreement or in a single addendum to that agreement. It further stated that the agreement or the addendum thereto must contain all of the fee information, which § 1005.19(a)(3) defines as the short form disclosure for the prepaid account pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2) and the fee information and statements required to be disclosed in the pre-acquisition long form disclosure for the prepaid account pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(4). As explained in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau believed that permitting issuers to include the short form and long form disclosures together as part of the prepaid account agreement or in a single addendum to that agreement would provide issuers some flexibility, while ensuring that consumers and other parties reviewing the agreements have access to such information.
As explained in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau was concerned that permitting the short form and long form disclosures to be included either as part of the prepaid account agreement or in a single addendum might not provide issuers the flexibility the Bureau intended.
The Bureau therefore proposed to revise § 1005.19(b)(6)(ii) to allow issuers to submit the pre-acquisition disclosures either as one or separate addenda. Specifically, proposed § 1005.19(b)(6)(ii) would have provided that fee information must be set forth either in the prepaid account agreement or in addenda to that agreement that attach either or both the short form disclosure for the prepaid account pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2) and the fee information and statements required to be disclosed in the long form disclosure for the prepaid account pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(4). The agreement or addenda thereto must contain all of the fee information, as defined by § 1005.19(a)(3). The Bureau also proposed to make conforming changes to § 1005.19(b)(6)(iii) and comment 19(b)(6)-3, which govern the requirements for integrated prepaid account agreements and which reference an optional fee information addendum, to reflect the proposed changes to § 1005.19(b)(6)(ii).
Several industry commenters, including trade associations, a program manager, and a think tank, supported the proposed revisions to § 1005.19(b)(6)(ii) and (iii). One of the trade associations confirmed the Bureau's expectation that many issuers will likely create two separate documents (one for the short form disclosure and another for the long form disclosure) and thus would be forced to combine the documents into the agreement or into a single addendum, which they asserted will complicate the submission process if the requirement is left unchanged. Several of the other industry commenters stated that the proposed changes would facilitate compliance and potentially reduce the cost and burden associated with the § 1005.19 submission and posting requirements.
A group of consumer advocates stated that, although they had no objection to the Bureau's proposal to permit issuers to submit the short form and long form disclosures as separate documents, the
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing the revisions to § 1005.19(b)(6)(ii) and (iii) and comment 19(b)(6)-3 as proposed to provide issuers some flexibility when submitting prepaid account agreements and fee information, as it intended in the 2016 Final Rule. The Bureau continues to believe that allowing issuers to include the fee information either as part of the prepaid account agreement or as one or separate addenda will also facilitate compliance.
With respect to the advocates' suggestion to require fee information to be submitted separately, the Bureau is not adopting the advocates' suggestion because doing so would impose an additional affirmative requirement to create separate addenda for the fee information (if an issuer does not already have such information separated) and would be contrary to the Bureau's reasoning for revising § 1005.19(b)(6)(ii), which was to provide issuers flexibility when submitting prepaid account agreements to the Bureau pursuant to § 1005.19(b). However, as discussed above, the Bureau expects that many issuers will likely create a separate document at least for the short form disclosure, and possibly for the long form disclosure as well, given the form and content requirements for such disclosures set forth in § 1005.18(b); the Bureau expects that those issuers will prefer to submit the fee information separately, even without a requirement to do so.
As discussed in detail in part VI below, the Bureau is extending by an additional 12 months the general effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule, to April 1, 2019. The Bureau is likewise extending the effective date of § 1005.19(b) for the agreement submission requirement to April 1, 2019, as it does not believe it is warranted to have an earlier effective date for only that provision. The unified effective date of April 1, 2019 for all Prepaid Accounts Rule provisions renders most of the text of § 1005.19(f) unnecessary, and thus the Bureau is making substantial changes to § 1005.19(f) and related commentary to reflect this..
In the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau proposed revisions to clarify how the October 1, 2018 effective date was described in § 1005.19(f)(2) and comment 19(f)-1 to avoid any potential confusion between the delayed effective date for § 1005.19(b) and the general effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. In that proposal, the Bureau also stated its continued belief that the October 1, 2018 effective date for the agreement submission requirement of § 1005.19(b) was appropriate, given its ongoing work to develop a streamlined electronic submission process. Although the Bureau received comments seeking a further extension of the April 1, 2018 general effective date, the Bureau did not receive any comments specific to the proposed changes to clarify the interaction of the two effective dates.
As stated in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau expects that its streamlined electronic submission process will be fully operational before that provision's original effective date of October 1, 2018. However, because the Bureau is extending the effective date for all provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to April 1, 2019, much of § 1005.19(f)—which had established the separate effective date of the agreement submission requirement along with related provisions (both as set forth in the 2016 Final Rule and as proposed in the June 2017 Proposal)—is now unnecessary. Accordingly, the Bureau is removing most of § 1005.19(f), including its three sub-paragraphs, and replacing it with simplified regulatory text stating the general April 1, 2019 effective date. The Bureau is retaining the portion of § 1005.19(f)(2), renumbered as § 1005.19(f), stating that an issuer must submit to the Bureau no later than May 1, 2019 all prepaid account agreements it offers as of April 1, 2019. The Bureau is also revising the heading for § 1005.19(f) for clarity and removing the commentary that accompanied § 1005.19(f). These changes do not affect the substance of issuers' obligations to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau pursuant to § 1005.19(b).
The 2016 Final Rule's version of appendix A-7(c) provides model language for use by a financial institution that chooses not to provide provisional credit while investigating an alleged error for prepaid accounts for which it has not completed its consumer identification and verification process, in accordance with the 2016 Final Rule's general limited liability and error resolution provisions. The Bureau proposed to revise that model language to reflect the proposed amendments to § 1005.18(d)(1)(ii) and (e)(3). The proposed language was similar to the language used in the 2014 Proposal, with additional language to clarify that limited liability and error resolution rights would apply only upon successful verification of the consumer's identity.
The language of final appendix A-7(c) reads: “It is important to register your prepaid account as soon as possible. Until you register your account and we
The Bureau is making technical corrections, such as correcting typographical errors, editing text for consistency, and making similar minor changes, to various provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule in Regulation E, which are not intended to change the meaning of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. Where these changes are being made to provisions that the Bureau is also revising for other reasons, these changes are noted in the section-by-section analyses above.
• Changing “customer” to “consumer” identification and verification in § 1005.18(b)(2)(xi) and comments 18(b)(2)(xi)-2 and 18(b)(4)(iii)-1 for consistency with usage of that term elsewhere in Regulation E, including the error resolution and limited liability provisions in revised § 1005.18(e). The Bureau is also correcting the cross-reference at the end of comment 18(b)(2)(xi)-2 (changing “comments 18(e)-4 and 5” to “comments 18(e)-4 through 6”).
• Revising the last sentence of comment 18(b)(5)-2, for consistency with the regulatory text, to state that the § 1005.18(b)(5) disclosure is deemed in close proximity to the “access device's packaging material”, rather than the “short form disclosure”, when disclosure of the purchase price is made on or near the sales rack or display for the packaging material at retail locations. The Bureau is also making a grammatical correction in that paragraph (changing “written short form disclosures” to “a written short form disclosure”).
• Adjusting terminology for consistency with other portions of the regulatory text and commentary in § 1005.18(b)(7)(i)(B) (changing “information” to “statements” in reference to § 1005.18(b)(4)(iii) through (vi) and “disclosures” to “statements” in reference to § 1005.18(b)(4)(vi)) and in comments 2(b)(3)(i)-6 (changing “prepaid account” to “product” in the heading), 18(b)(2)(viii)(A)-2.i introductory text and 2.ii introductory text (changing “fees” to “fee types” in the first sentence of each comment), 18(b)(4)(vii)-1 (changing “disclosures” to “statements” in reference to § 1005.18(b)(4)(vi)), 18(b)(7)(ii)-1 (changing “type/pixel” to “point/pixel”), 18(c)-5 (changing “make available” to “provide”), and 19(a)(4)-2 (changing “submit” to “make submissions of”).
• Correcting grammar and typographical errors in § 1005.18(b)(1)(iii) (changing “disclosures” to “disclosure” and “are” to “is”), § 1005.18(b)(6)(ii) (changing “long form disclosures” to “a long form disclosure”), § 1005.18(b)(6)(iii)(A) (changing “disclosures” to “disclosure”), § 1005.18(b)(6)(iii)(B)(
• Correcting a cross-reference in comment 18(c)-6 (changing “§ 1005.18(e)(3)(i)(A) through (C)” to “§ 1005.18(e)(3)(ii)(A) through (C)”).
In the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau amended Regulations Z and E to establish a set of requirements in connection with “hybrid prepaid-credit cards” that can access overdraft credit features offered by the prepaid account issuer, its affiliate, or its business partner.
Overdraft credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards are referred to as “covered separate credit features” in the Prepaid Accounts Rule, as set forth in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i). The Bureau designed this portion of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to ensure that these products will be treated consistently regardless of certain details about how the credit relationship is structured. For example, the rules for covered separate credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards apply regardless of whether the credit is offered by the prepaid account issuer itself, its affiliate, or its business partner. The 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) defined the term “business partner” as a person (other than the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate) that can extend credit through a separate credit feature where the person or its affiliate has an arrangement with a prepaid account issuer or its affiliate. The 2016 Final Rule's version of comment 61(a)(5)(iii)-1 explained that there are two types of arrangements that create a business partner relationship for purposes of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii): (1) An agreement between the parties under which a prepaid card can from time to time draw, transfer, or authorize a draw or transfer of credit in the course of
As explained in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau believed that it was appropriate to consider a third party that can extend credit to be the prepaid account issuer's business partner in the above circumstances because such arrangements can be used to replicate overdraft programs on a prepaid account. Specifically, the Bureau believed that these types of relationships between the prepaid account issuer and the unaffiliated third party were likely to involve revenue sharing or payments between the two companies and the pricing structure of the two accounts may be related.
However, the Bureau did not apply the rules related to hybrid prepaid-credit cards in situations where there is less of a connection between the person offering credit and the prepaid account issuer, such that the person offering credit may not be aware its credit feature is being used as an overdraft credit feature with respect to a prepaid account.
The 2016 Final Rule also set forth an exception in § 1026.61(a)(4) allowing prepaid account issuers to provide certain incidental forms of credit structured as a negative balance on the asset feature of prepaid accounts without triggering Regulation Z and the other protections for hybrid prepaid-credit cards. The Bureau created this exception to allow prepaid account issuers to provide certain forms of incidental credit to their customers, including situations where a negative balance results because a consumer completes transactions with his or her prepaid account while an incoming load of funds from an asset account is still being processed.
Since issuance of the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau has received feedback indicating digital wallet providers were concerned that application of the substantive credit rules in certain circumstances would create a number of unique challenges for their products. Unlike a GPR card, which is generally designed to be used as a standalone product similar to a checking account, a digital wallet is a product that by its nature is generally intended to facilitate the consumer's use of multiple payment options in online and mobile transactions, similar to a physical wallet holding credit and debit cards as well as cash. As set forth in Regulation E § 1005.2(b)(3) and comment 2(b)(3)(i)-6, the term “prepaid account” includes digital wallets that are capable of being loaded with funds; those that simply hold payment credentials for other accounts but that are incapable of having funds stored in them are not covered. Even where a digital wallet provides the ability to store funds directly, consumers also may want to store credentials for their existing credit, debit, and prepaid cards and deposit accounts so that they have a range of payment options available. These digital wallet providers may actively encourage consumers to use both functions, either by direct marketing to consumers or through joint arrangements with card issuers.
In response to the 2017 Effective Date Proposal, a digital wallet provider whose product can store funds (such that its digital wallet accounts are prepaid accounts under Regulation E § 1005.2(b)(3)) submitted a comment letter. That digital wallet provider raised several concerns about the account number for a digital wallet account becoming a hybrid prepaid-credit card where a consumer links a digital wallet account to credit card accounts that are offered by companies with which the digital wallet provider has cross-marketing or other agreements that would create a business partner relationship under the 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii).
This commenter especially was concerned about several targeted provisions of the Rule. First, the commenter pointed to a provision in § 1026.61(c) that generally requires a card issuer to wait 30 days after a prepaid account has been registered before soliciting or opening new credit features or linking existing credit features to the prepaid account that would be accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card. The commenter
Second, the commenter asserted that additional consumer confusion is likely to arise from the long form pre-acquisition disclosure requirements set forth in Regulation E § 1005.18(b)(4)(vii), which mandate that disclosures of key credit pricing terms set forth in § 1026.60(e)(1) be included on a prepaid account's long form disclosure if a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card may be offered to a consumer in connection with the prepaid account. The commenter indicated that these credit disclosures for each credit card product offered by each business partner would have to be provided to all new digital wallet account holders in the digital wallet account's long form disclosure even if many of the digital wallet account holders never hold, or apply for, credit card accounts offered by those business partners. The commenter indicated that such disclosures might be numerous depending on how many business partners the digital wallet provider has and how many credit card products are offered by each business partner and thus asserted that additional consumer confusion was likely to arise from the inclusion of those disclosures in the long form for its digital wallet accounts.
Third, the commenter raised concerns about the exception in the 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1026.61(a)(4) allowing prepaid account issuers to provide certain incidental forms of credit as a negative balance on the asset feature of prepaid accounts without triggering Regulation Z and the other protections for hybrid prepaid-credit cards. The commenter pointed out that it could not take advantage of this exception when a customer links a credit card account offered by one of its business partners. Rather, the 2016 Final Rule would prohibit a negative balance and instead would require that even incidental credit be obtained using a separate credit account or subaccount of the prepaid account that is subject to the full protections of Regulation Z. The commenter expressed concern that this could cause consumer confusion and increase the likelihood that consumers would be charged fees or interest because the incidental credit would be provided formally via the separate credit feature, rather than as a temporary negative balance on the asset account.
As discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) below, in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to create a limited exception from the definition of “business partner” that would have excluded certain arrangements between card issuers and prepaid account issuers (including digital wallet providers) from the tailored provisions in the Prepaid Accounts Rule applicable to covered separate credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards. As explained below, where the credit card accounts would already be subject to traditional credit card rules under Regulation Z and certain other safeguards are present, the Bureau believed that it might not be necessary to apply the Prepaid Accounts Rule's tailored provisions to such business arrangements. The Bureau is adopting this exception generally as proposed with some revisions as discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analyses of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) and (a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Also, as discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a)(4) below, the Bureau is amending § 1026.61(a)(4) to allow a prepaid account issuer to provide certain forms of incidental credit structured as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account without triggering Regulation Z and the other protections for hybrid prepaid-credit cards in situations when a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is attached to the prepaid account, so long as the other conditions contained in § 1026.61(a)(4) are satisfied. The Bureau also is making changes to certain other provisions in Regulation Z for consistency with the changes to § 1026.61(a)(4).
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a) above, the Bureau adopted § 1026.61(a)(4) in the 2016 Final Rule to allow prepaid account issuers to provide certain incidental forms of credit as a negative balance on the asset feature of prepaid accounts without triggering Regulation Z and the other protections for hybrid prepaid-credit cards. The exception only would have applied where (1) the prepaid card cannot access credit from a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card; (2) the prepaid account issuer has a general policy and practice of declining transactions that will take the account negative (at least outside of the situations involving incidental credit); and (3) the prepaid account issuer generally does not charge credit-related fees. If the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) were met, the prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card and the incidental credit is not subject to Regulation Z and the other protections in Regulations Z and E for hybrid prepaid-credit cards. Instead, this credit is regulated under Regulation E as credit incidental to the prepaid card transaction.
If the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) were not met, the prepaid card would be a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to the negative balance under § 1026.61(a)(3), and § 1026.61(b) prohibits the card issuer from structuring the overdraft credit feature as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. In that case, the card issuer must structure an overdraft credit feature in connection with a prepaid account as a separate credit feature, such as a credit account or credit subaccount to the prepaid account that is separate from the asset feature of the prepaid account. This separate credit feature is a “covered separate credit feature” under § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) and is subject to the credit card rules in Regulation Z, as well as the targeted provisions in Regulations Z and E applicable to hybrid prepaid-credit cards.
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a) above, in response to the 2017 Effective Date Proposal, one digital wallet provider expressed concern that it could not take advantage of the exception in the 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1026.61(a)(4)
In the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau did not propose changes to § 1026.61(a)(4). The Bureau believed that the exception to the definition of “business partner” it proposed in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) would address the commenter's concern by substantially narrowing the circumstances in which digital wallets would be likely to trigger these Regulation Z requirements. The Bureau also believed that when the exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) did not apply, the prepaid account issuer and the card issuer would have a substantial relationship such that the parties could avoid the concerns raised by the digital wallet provider by structuring the terms of the accounts to prevent consumers from being charged fees or interest when incidental credit was provided formally via the credit card account.
Nevertheless, the Bureau solicited comment on whether it should permit incidental credit to be provided via a negative balance on a prepaid account even when a covered separate credit feature is connected to the prepaid account, as requested by the digital wallet commenter. The Bureau also solicited comment on whether prepaid account issuers or card issuers are likely to incur any significant difficulties in structuring the accounts to prevent consumers from being charged fees or interest when the incidental credit is provided formally via the credit card account, such as any significant difficulties in identifying for the card issuer which transactions on the prepaid account relate to incidental credit.
In response to the June 2017 Proposal, the digital wallet provider and an industry trade association requested that the Bureau revise § 1026.61(a)(4) to permit negative balances on a prepaid account even if a covered separate credit feature is attached to the prepaid account so long as the other conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4) are met. The digital wallet provider indicated that consumers are likely to become confused if the digital wallet provider opens a separate credit account or subaccount in its digital wallet to avoid a negative balance when a credit card account issued by a business partner is linked to the digital wallet. The commenter indicated that this consumer confusion is particularly likely to arise for consumers who previously incurred negative balances in their prepaid accounts for incidental credit when their digital wallets were linked only to credit card accounts issued by card issuers that are not business partners. The commenter indicated that consumers may not understand why the incidental credit is now being provided through a separate credit account or subaccount (as opposed to a negative balance) and why they are receiving Regulation Z disclosures, including monthly statements, for this separate credit account or subaccount. The commenter also indicated that building systems to comply with Regulation Z to hold otherwise permissible negative balances in separate credit accounts or subaccounts when business partner credit card accounts are linked (and converting the accounts back if consumers subsequently remove such credit card accounts from their digital wallet accounts) would be a major technological and financial undertaking.
This commenter recognized that the rule did not prohibit a prepaid account issuer from charging incidental credit to the linked covered separate credit feature offered by the business partner. Nonetheless, this commenter indicated that such charges would not always be possible. For example, it said that the prepaid account issuer would not be able to charge the incidental credit to a linked credit card when doing so would cause the credit card account to exceed the credit limit set by the card issuer. Even when it is possible to charge the incidental credit to the linked covered separate credit feature, this commenter suggested that doing so likely would be financially detrimental to consumers. In particular, the commenter stated that incidental credit charged to the linked covered separate credit feature would likely be deemed a cash advance by the card issuer and thus is likely to subject the consumer to interest and fees. The commenter also indicated that it is not likely that card issuers would be willing to waive interest or fees when incidental credit (that would otherwise take the form of a negative balance in a digital wallet) is instead converted to an extension of credit through the linked covered separate credit feature. This commenter believed that it was much more likely that credit card issuers would impose interest and fees directly on the consumers for this credit or would expect digital wallet providers to incur those costs on behalf of their customers.
The trade association also raised similar concerns as discussed above related to consumer confusion and implementation burdens for digital wallet providers.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is amending § 1026.61(a)(4) to allow a prepaid account issuer to take advantage of the exception permitting a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account even if a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is attached, so long as the other conditions contained in § 1026.61(a)(4) are satisfied. As discussed above, the 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1026.61(a)(4) provided that a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card and thus is not a credit card under Regulation Z if three conditions were met: (1) The prepaid card cannot access credit from a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card; (2) the prepaid account issuer has a general policy and practice of declining transactions that will take the account negative (at least outside of the situations involving incidental credit); and (3) the prepaid account issuer generally does not charge credit-related fees.
The Bureau is making several revisions to § 1026.61(a)(4). First, the Bureau is revising the lead-in paragraph to § 1026.61(a)(4) to provide that a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account and is not a credit card for purposes of Regulation Z with respect to that credit if the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) are met. Second, the Bureau is adjusting the first condition in § 1026.61(a)(4)(i) to provide that the prepaid card cannot access credit from a covered separate credit feature, as described § 1026.61(a)(2)(i), that is offered by a prepaid account issuer or its affiliate. Third, the Bureau is modifying the heading for § 1026.61(a)(4) to make clear that this exception relates to credit extended through a negative balance on
If the conditions of final § 1026.61(a)(4) are not met, such as where the prepaid card can access a covered separate credit feature offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate, the prepaid card is a hybrid prepaid-credit card under § 1026.61(a)(3) with respect to credit extended through the negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. As a result, § 1026.61(b) prohibits the card issuer from structuring the overdraft credit feature as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. In that case, the card issuer must structure the overdraft credit feature as a separate credit feature, such as a credit account or subaccount to the prepaid account that is separate from the asset feature of the prepaid account. This separate credit feature is a “covered separate credit feature” under § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) and is subject to the credit card rules in Regulation Z, as well as the targeted provisions in Regulations Z and E applicable to hybrid prepaid-credit cards.
The Bureau notes that the exception in final § 1026.61(a)(4) only applies to credit extended through the negative balance on the prepaid account's asset feature in compliance with that provision. However, if the prepaid card is
The Bureau also is amending comment 61(a)(4)-1 and several other provisions in Regulation Z to reflect the revised exception in final § 1026.61(a)(4) and to make other clarifications consistent with final § 1026.61(a)(4).
(1) Section 1026.61(a)(1)(iii) provides that with respect to a credit feature structured as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account as described in § 1026.61(a)(3), a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card or a credit card for purposes of Regulation Z if the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4) are met;
(2) Section 1026.61(a)(3)(ii) provides that a prepaid account issuer can use a negative asset balance structure to extend credit on an asset feature of a prepaid account only if the prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to that credit as described in § 1026.61(a)(4);
(3) Comment 4(b)(11)-1.i provides that the rules for classification of fees or charges as finance charges with respect to a covered separate credit feature are specified in § 1026.4(b)(11) and related commentary;
(4) Comment 4(b)(11)-1.iii provides that if the prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(4), with regard to that credit, fees charged on the asset feature of the prepaid account in accordance with § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B) are not finance charges;
(5) Comment 61(a)(3)(i)-1.ii provides that unless the credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account meets the requirements of § 1026.61(a)(4), such a product structure would violate the rules under § 1026.61(b); and
(6) Comment 61(a)(3)(ii)-1 provides that unless § 1026.61(a)(4) applies, a card issuer would violate § 1026.61(b) if it structures a credit feature as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account and provides that a prepaid account issuer can use a negative asset balance structure to extend credit on a prepaid account if the prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to that credit as described in § 1026.61(a)(4).
To facilitate compliance with TILA, the Bureau believes it is necessary and proper to exercise its exception authority under TILA section 105(a) so that a prepaid card that accesses credit structured as a negative balance on the prepaid account is excluded from the definition of “credit card” under TILA section 103(
The Bureau recognizes that when a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is attached to a prepaid account, it may not always be possible to charge incidental credit to the linked covered separate credit feature when doing so would cause the account to exceed the credit limit set by the card issuer. In addition, even when it is possible to charge the incidental credit to the linked covered separate credit feature, the card issuer may not be willing to waive interest and fees on that credit. To avoid having a negative balance in the asset feature of the prepaid account and thus violating § 1026.61(b), the prepaid account issuer could open a separate credit account or subaccount in the digital wallet in those cases where a covered separate credit feature issued by a business partner is linked.
The Bureau also agrees with the industry commenters that, absent its exception to § 1026.61(a)(4), this aspect of the Prepaid Accounts Rule likely would create significant operational burdens for prepaid account issuers. A prepaid account issuer would need to build Regulation Z-compliant systems to hold otherwise permissible negative balances in separate accounts or subaccounts when consumers link business partner credit card accounts (and, the Bureau presumes, convert the account back when such accounts are removed). The Bureau also is persuaded that this approach could be confusing to consumers, especially in the context of digital wallets and how consumers have historically used them.
When discussing their concerns about § 1026.61(a)(4), the industry commenters generally focused on situations that arise when a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is linked to a prepaid account. The Bureau does not believe that these same concerns arise when a covered separate credit feature is offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate (as opposed to a business partner) and thus is not amending § 1026.61(a)(4) to allow a negative balance on the prepaid account when a covered separate credit feature offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate is attached to the prepaid account. Among other things, the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate, in these cases, would already offer Regulation Z-compliant covered separate credit features. The Bureau believes when the prepaid account issuer itself or an affiliated party offer both the prepaid account and the covered separate credit feature, it will
The Bureau also is adding a new comment 61(a)(4)-1.ii to provide additional guidance on circumstances when a prepaid card accesses both a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account that meets the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) and other credit features. Specifically, consistent with final § 1026.61(a)(4), new comment 61(a)(4)-1.ii explains that if the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) are met and the prepaid card can access credit from a covered separate credit feature, as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i), that is offered by a business partner, the prepaid card is a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to the covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) but it is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended by a prepaid account issuer through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account that meets the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) or with respect to any non-covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii). New comment 61(a)(4)-1.ii also explains that, if the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) are met and the prepaid card cannot access credit from any covered separate credit feature, as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i), the prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended by a prepaid account issuer through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account that meets the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) or with respect to any non-covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii).
The 2016 Final Rule's version of comment 61(a)(4)-1.ii provided an example of when a prepaid card was not a hybrid prepaid-credit card because the conditions in § 1026.61(a)(4) had been met. The Bureau is renumbering this comment as final comment 61(a)(4)-1.iii and is revising it to be consistent with final § 1026.61(a)(4). Specifically, final comment 61(a)(4)-1.iii explains that a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account in the following circumstances because the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4) have been met: (1) The prepaid card can only access credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account in accordance with both the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B); and (2) the card can access credit from a non-covered separate credit feature as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii) and from a covered separate credit feature as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) offered by a business partner, but cannot access credit for a covered separate credit feature that is offered by a prepaid account issuer or its affiliate.
The 2016 Final Rule's version of comment 61(a)(4)-1.iii provided an example of when a prepaid card was a hybrid prepaid-credit card because the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) had not been met. The Bureau is renumbering this comment as final comment 61(a)(4)-1.iv and is revising it for consistency with the changes made to § 1026.61(a)(4). Specifically, final comment 61(a)(4)-1.iv makes clear that a prepaid account issuer does not qualify for the exception in § 1026.61(a)(4) if the prepaid account issuer structures the arrangement such that, when there are insufficient or unavailable funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account at the time a transaction is initiated, the card can be used to draw, transfer, or authorize the draw or transfer of credit from a covered separate credit feature offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate during the authorization phase to complete the transaction so that credit is not extended on the asset feature of the prepaid account. In this case, the exception in final § 1026.61(a)(4) does not apply because the prepaid card can be used to draw, transfer, or authorize the draw or transfer of credit from a covered separate credit feature defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) that is offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate. Final comment 61(a)(4)-1.iv also explains that, in this example, the card is a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(3) and with respect to the covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(i). In that case, a card issuer has violated § 1026.61(b) because it has structured the credit feature as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account.
The 2016 Final Rule's version of comment 61(a)(4)-1.iv provided guidance on how the regulation applied in cases where the prepaid card was not a hybrid prepaid-credit card. The Bureau is renumbering this comment as final comment 61(a)(4)-1.v and revising it for consistency with final § 1026.61(a)(4). Specifically, final comment 61(a)(4)-1.v provides that, in the case where a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account because the conditions in § 1026.61(a)(4) are met, the prepaid account issuer is not a card issuer under § 1026.2(a)(7) with respect to the prepaid card when it accesses credit extended through the negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. The prepaid account issuer also is not a creditor under § 1026.17(a)(iii) or (iv) because it is not a card issuer under § 1026.2(a)(7) with respect to the prepaid card when it accesses credit extended through the negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. The prepaid account issuer also is not a creditor under § 1026.2(a)(17)(i) with respect to credit extended through the negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account as a result of imposing fees on the prepaid account because those fees are not finance charges with respect to that credit, as described in final comment 4(b)(11)-1.iii.
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a) above, overdraft credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards are referred to as “covered separate credit features” in the Prepaid Accounts Rule, as set forth in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i). These covered separate credit features are subject to the traditional credit card rules in Regulation Z, as well as other tailored provisions established by the 2016 Final Rule in both Regulations Z and E. The rules for covered separate credit features
As discussed above, a digital wallet provider raised several concerns in its comment letter on the 2017 Effective Date Proposal about the account number for the digital wallet account becoming a hybrid prepaid-credit card when consumers link their digital wallet accounts to credit card accounts that are offered by companies with which the digital wallet provider has cross-marketing or other agreements that would create a business partner relationship under the 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii).
This commenter especially was concerned about several targeted provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule, as discussed above in detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a). In particular, it indicated that consumers would likely be confused if they had to wait 30 days after registering a prepaid account that is a digital wallet before linking a credit card account offered by a business partner to the digital wallet, but they could add a credit card account immediately after opening the digital wallet account if there was no business partner arrangement. The commenter expressed concern that additional consumer confusion would likely arise from the long form pre-acquisition disclosure requirements set forth in Regulation E § 1005.18(b)(4)(vii), which mandate that disclosures of key credit pricing terms set forth in § 1026.60(e)(1) be included on a prepaid account's long form disclosure if a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card may be offered to a consumer in connection with the prepaid account. The commenter indicated that these credit disclosures for each credit card product offered by each business partner, which could be numerous, would have to be provided to all new digital wallet account holders in the digital wallet account's long form disclosure even though many of the digital wallet account holders may never hold, or apply for, credit card accounts offered by those business partners.
In an effort to address these concerns, the Bureau proposed to narrow the definition of “business partner” in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) to exclude certain arrangements between prepaid account issuers and companies that offer products already subject to traditional credit card rules, provided that certain additional safeguards are in place. Under the proposed exception, the prepaid account issuer and the card issuer would not have been “business partners” under proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii), and thus the prepaid card would not have been a hybrid prepaid-credit card under § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) with respect to the credit card account if certain conditions were met.
To effectuate this potential exception, the Bureau proposed several revisions to the definition of “business partner” in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii). First, the Bureau proposed to move certain guidance on when there is an arrangement between business partners from comment 61(a)(5)(iii)-1 to the regulatory text itself in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C), and to revise this language for clarity, as discussed in more detail below. In particular, this proposed change would have included moving the descriptions of the two types of arrangements that trigger coverage as business partners, as discussed above, to proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(B) and (C).
Second, in response to concerns raised by the digital wallet provider, the Bureau proposed to add an exception, in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), to the definition of business partner. Specifically, proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) would have provided that a person that can extend credit through a credit card account is not a business partner of a prepaid account issuer with which it has an arrangement, as defined in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C), with regard to such credit card account if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The credit card account is a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan that a consumer can access through a traditional credit card.
(2) The prepaid account issuer and the card issuer will not allow the prepaid card to draw, transfer, or authorize the draw or transfer of credit from the credit card account from time to time in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing transactions conducted with the card to obtain goods or services, obtain cash, or conduct P2P transfers, except where the prepaid account issuer or the card issuer has received from the consumer a written request that is separately signed or initialized to authorize the prepaid card to access the credit card account, as described above.
(3) The prepaid account issuer and the card issuer do not condition the acquisition or retention of the prepaid account or the credit card account on whether a consumer authorizes the prepaid card to access the credit card account, as described above in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
(4) The prepaid account issuer applies the same terms, conditions, or features to the prepaid account when a consumer authorizes linking the prepaid card to the credit card account, as described above, in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
(5) The card issuer applies the same specified terms and conditions to the credit card account when a consumer authorizes linking the prepaid card to the credit card account as described above in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Each of these conditions is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section
Under proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), a person that can extend credit through a credit card account that can be linked to a prepaid account would not be a business partner of the prepaid account issuer with which it has an arrangement, as defined in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C), with respect to the credit card account. The credit feature would be subject to traditional credit card rules in its own right because one of the conditions for the proposed exception (proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
(1) Restrictions in Regulation E § 1005.18(g) on account terms, conditions, and features imposed on the asset feature of the prepaid account and applicability of the fee restriction in § 1026.52(a) to certain fees imposed on the asset feature of the prepaid account;
(2) Repayment-related provisions applicable to covered separate credit features in §§ 1026.5(b)(2)(ii)(A), 1026.7(b)(11), 1026.12(d)(2) and (3), and Regulation E § 1005.10(e)(1);
(3) Applicability of the claims and defenses provision in § 1026.12(c); and
(4) Applicability of limits on liability for unauthorized use and error resolution provisions in §§ 1026.12(b) and 1026.13 and Regulation E § 1005.12(a).
The Bureau did not propose to specifically tailor the proposed exception to digital wallet accounts because the Bureau believed that it may be difficult to distinguish these digital wallet accounts from other types of prepaid accounts, particularly those that operate without a physical access device. Nonetheless, the Bureau believed that the proposed exception would address most of the concerns raised by the digital wallet provider, as discussed above. While prepaid account issuers do not generally permit card-based prepaid accounts to be linked to credit card accounts in order to back up transactions where the prepaid account lacks sufficient funds, the Bureau believed that the potential risk to consumers if issuers were to do so would be minimal if the conditions in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) were met.
The Bureau did not propose to extend the exception to situations where the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate was the party offering the credit card account. The Bureau believed that ensuring separation and independence is more complicated when both accounts are issued by the same entity or entities under common control, particularly given that offset, security interests, and other types of linkages may be present. Therefore, the Bureau believed that the Prepaid Accounts Rule's tailored protections, including the 30-day waiting period, were warranted in such cases.
Industry commenters that provided specific feedback on the proposed exception to the definition of “business partner” generally supported the exception with some suggested modifications. For example, several industry commenters, including trade associations, program managers, and a prepaid issuer, requested that the Bureau expand the proposed exception in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) to apply to credit card accounts that are offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate, so long as the same conditions set forth in the proposed exception were met. These commenters asserted that such an approach would avoid what they called an unfair and differential impact to prepaid account issuers that also issue credit cards, and that a broader exception should not introduce new risks to the consumer nor undermine the important policy goals of the Bureau.
In addition, the digital wallet provider commenter discussed above suggested that the Bureau not adopt the proposed conditions that the parties do not vary certain terms and conditions based on whether the two accounts are linked as set forth in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The group of consumer advocates also requested that the Bureau require an additional condition to qualify for the exception. Specifically, they suggested that any credit card account arrangement that is excepted from the definition of hybrid prepaid-credit card under § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) should be required to comply with § 1026.12(d)(3)(ii), which permits a written plan authorizing periodic deductions from the prepaid account only if the deductions are no more frequent than once per calendar month, such as on the date disclosed on the credit card statement. They were concerned that the credit card accounts might only be marketed to prepaid account holders, and these consumers could be led easily to believe that linking the two accounts is required and to agree to automatic payments on a daily or weekly basis.
A prepaid issuer requested that the Bureau ensure that the language of the exception, including the commentary, is drafted to clearly apply to all types of prepaid accounts, rather than limiting its purported applicability and underlying rationale to digital wallets.
With respect to the condition contained in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Several industry commenters, including trade associations, program
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is adopting § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) as proposed and is adopting the exception in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) generally as proposed with certain revisions. Specifically, final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
For the reasons discussed below, to facilitate compliance with TILA, the Bureau believes it is necessary and proper to exercise its exception authority under TILA section 105(a) so that a prepaid card that is linked to a credit card account meeting the conditions in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) is excluded from the definition of “credit card” under TILA section 103(
The Bureau believes that is appropriate and proper to use its exception authority under TILA section 105(a) for several reasons. First, the credit card account, even if not subject to the specific rules for hybrid prepaid-credit cards, is subject to the credit card rules in Regulation Z in its own right because it is a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan that the consumer can access with a traditional credit card, pursuant to final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Second, the Bureau believes that the conditions a prepaid account issuer and a card issuer must satisfy to qualify for the exception create substantial safeguards to protect against the prepaid account and the credit card account being connected in a way that would pose the kinds of risks to consumers that motivated the Bureau's approach to the general rules for covered separate credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards. For example, the 30-day waiting period in § 1026.61(c) was designed to ensure that consumers do not feel undue pressure to decide at the time that they purchase or register a prepaid account whether to link a covered separate credit feature to such account without having the opportunity to fully consider the terms of the prepaid account, the separate credit feature, and the consequences of linking the two.
Specifically, final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
In addition, the conditions in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau also believes that additional guidance is needed regarding how the condition in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau does not believe that similar guidance is needed with respect to how the conditions in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau is not making additional revisions to the exception in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) as requested by some commenters (summarized in detail above), for the reasons discussed below.
The 2016 Final Rule's version of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) defined the term “business partner” for purposes of § 1026.61 and other provisions in Regulation Z related to hybrid prepaid-credit cards generally to mean a person (other than the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate) that can extend credit through a separate credit feature where the person or its affiliate has an arrangement with a prepaid account issuer or its affiliate. The Bureau proposed generally to retain this language in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) with a revision to reference the proposed exception in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D).
The 2016 Final Rule's version of comment 61(a)(5)(iii)-1 described the two types of business arrangements that created a business partnership for purposes of the rule, separately provided in paragraphs i and ii. The Bureau proposed to move most of this language into the regulatory text, with introductory language in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) and the two types of business arrangements described in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(B) and (C), respectively, with small revisions for clarity. The Bureau also proposed to consolidate the language regarding membership in card networks or payment networks that appeared in comments 61(a)(5)(iii)-1.i and ii as new proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)-1, which would have explained that a draw, transfer, or authorization of the draw or transfer from a credit feature may be effectuated through a card network or a payment network, but would have emphasized that for the purposes of proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii), agreements to participate in a card network or payment network themselves do not constitute an “agreement” or a “business, marketing, or promotional agreement or other arrangement” described in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(B) or (C), respectively. The Bureau did not propose any changes to comment 61(a)(5)(iii)-2.
The Bureau did not receive any specific comments on this aspect of the proposal. The Bureau is adopting § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) and new comment 61(a)(5)(iii)-1 as proposed.
For the reasons explained above in the section-by-section analyses of § 1026.61(a) and (a)(5)(iii) above, the Bureau proposed to add an exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) to the definition of “business partner.” Specifically, proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) would have provided that a person that can extend credit through a credit card account is not a business partner of a prepaid account issuer with which it has an arrangement as defined in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) with regard to such credit card account if certain conditions were met. The conditions were broadly designed to ensure that the credit card account would be subject to Regulation Z credit card requirements in its own right and that the acquisition, retention, and pricing terms of the prepaid account and credit card account would not depend on whether a consumer authorizes the linking of the two accounts to allow the prepaid card to access credit from time to time in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing transactions conducted with the card to obtain goods or services, obtain cash, or conduct P2P
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)-1 would have provided that if the exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) were to apply, a person that can extend credit through the credit card account would not be a business partner of a prepaid account issuer with which it has an arrangement as defined in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C). Accordingly, in those cases where a consumer has authorized his or her prepaid card in accordance with proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) to be linked to the credit card account in such a way as to allow the prepaid card to access the credit card account as described in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau received several comments on the proposed exception generally, which are discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) above. In addition, the Bureau also received some comments related to specific proposed conditions, which are discussed in the section-by-section analyses of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
For the reasons set forth in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) above, the Bureau is adopting the exception in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) generally as proposed with several modifications as described in the section-by-section analyses of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) above and § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
To satisfy the exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), under proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
This proposed condition would have ensured that the exception only applies to credit features subject to the full protections of the credit card rules in Regulation Z that are applicable to credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan. As discussed in the 2016 Final Rule, these protections include a range of requirements governing pricing, restrictions on repayment terms, limits on liability for unauthorized use, and requirements that card issuers must assess the consumer's ability to pay the credit before opening the account. The pricing protections include restrictions on the fees that an issuer can charge during the first year after an account is opened, and limits on the amount of fees that issuers can charge when a consumer makes a late payment or exceeds his or her credit limit. The protections also restrict the circumstances under which issuers can increase interest rates on credit card accounts and establish procedures for doing so. As explained in the 2016 Final Rule, the Bureau believed that applying these protections to overdraft features in connection with prepaid accounts would promote transparent pricing for prepaid accountholders.
A group of consumer advocate commenters requested that the Bureau revise the definition of “traditional credit card” contained in proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is adopting § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau also does not believe that it is necessary to narrow the definition of “traditional credit card,” as suggested by the group of consumer advocate commenters, to prevent evasion. The Bureau believes that introducing additional concepts into the definition of “traditional credit card” like the fact that the credit card must be accepted at “every” merchant that participates in a widely accepted payment card network, or that the credit card must be accepted only for “bona fide” purchases of goods or services at a particular retail merchant or group of merchants, could complicate the definition and add to
To satisfy the exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), under proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Several industry commenters, including program managers and a trade association, requested that the condition to obtain a written authorization not apply where the two accounts were linked prior to the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. They argued that requiring prepaid account issuers or card issuers to obtain a “written request” from consumers for accounts linked prior to the effective date would likely prove to be an extremely expensive and burdensome condition for providers and consumers who have previously agreed to the linkage. These comments are discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii) above.
In addition, several industry commenters, including program managers and a trade association, stated that section 101(a) of the E-Sign Act would apply to enable a signature or agreement obtained electronically to have the same effect if it were obtained in writing, and requested that the Bureau confirm this point in regulatory text or commentary. A group of consumer advocates requested that the written request should be required to be “clear and readily understandable,” just as written authorizations for preauthorized electronic fund transfers must be under Regulation E (
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is adopting § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
In response to industry commenters' requests regarding the applicability of the E-Sign Act, the Bureau notes that the writing and signature conditions of final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
In response to the group of consumer advocate commenters' request to require that the written request be “clear and readily understandable,” the Bureau does not believe that it is necessary to specifically require this in the regulatory text or commentary at this time. The Bureau expects that, if a prepaid account issuer or card issuer provides language to consumers to sign or initialize to authorize the two accounts to be linked, the prepaid account issuer or card issuer will use language that is understandable to consumers so that the consumers are aware that they are making a request to link the two accounts. The Bureau will monitor the processes that prepaid account issuers or card issuers use to gain authorization to link the two accounts to ensure that the processes are understandable to consumers.
In adopting final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
To satisfy the exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), under proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau did not receive any specific comments on this aspect of the proposal. For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is adopting
For the same reasons described above in connection with final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
To satisfy the exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), under proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is adopting § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau believes that ensuring that the terms, conditions, and features of the consumer's prepaid account do not depend on whether the consumer authorizes a link with the credit card account, as provided for in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau believes that this standard provides an appropriate test with regard to comparing load fees by focusing specifically on what fees are charged on the consumer's prepaid account in a comparable load from a separate credit feature offered by a person that is not the prepaid account issuer, its affiliate, or a person with which the prepaid account issuer has an arrangement as described in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(A) through (C). The Bureau believes that this approach will facilitate compliance and is appropriate given that the Bureau expects that the exception in final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D) will most likely be used with respect to digital wallet accounts that consumers may choose to associate with multiple credit card accounts, including those offered by unaffiliated third parties.
To satisfy the exception in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), under proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
A digital wallet provider commenter requested that the Bureau remove the condition in proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
One trade association requested that the Bureau revise proposed § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is adopting § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau believes that an appropriate comparison standard for determining whether the same specified terms and conditions are provided to the consumer is to compare the specified terms and conditions on the consumer's account if there is a link to the prepaid account as described above with the specified terms and conditions that apply to the consumer's account if there is no such link. This approach ensures that the application and solicitation disclosures provided to the consumer under § 1026.60 with respect to the credit card account would reflect the same specified terms and conditions regardless of whether the consumer decides to link the two accounts, which will make consumers' decisions about account acquisition, retention, and link authorization simpler and less prone to undue pressure and the consequences of linking the two accounts less complex. In addition, the Bureau believes that this comparison approach captures situations when the specified terms and conditions vary based on whether there is a link, but it does avoid capturing situations where specified terms and conditions vary due to consumers' creditworthiness.
In final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Thus, a card issuer can satisfy final § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Specifically, final comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau is not removing comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
Proposed comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau is not removing comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
The Bureau is making technical corrections to several provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule in Regulation Z, which are not intended to change the meaning of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. Specifically, the Bureau is correcting cross-references in comments 52(b)(2)(i)-7 (changing Ҥ 1026.52(a)(2)(i)(B)(
As discussed below, the Bureau is extending the overall effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to April 1, 2019, including the requirement to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau. This final rule adopting certain changes to the Prepaid Accounts Rule will become effective 30 days after publication in the
While the Bureau did not propose a further extension of the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule in the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau solicited comment on whether a further delay of the effective date would be necessary and appropriate in light of the specific amendments proposed therein. The Bureau also solicited comment on which provisions in particular might cause financial institutions to need additional time, whether any further modifications to any of the particular amendments proposed therein would reduce or eliminate that need, and the appropriate length of such a further delay.
A group of consumer advocates urged the Bureau not to delay the effective date of the rule any further. These
Industry commenters, including trade associations, issuing banks, program managers, and others, as well as a think tank, generally advocated for the Bureau to consider a further extension of the effective date. Some of these commenters suggested extensions of varying lengths, while others did not suggest a particular length of time in their comments. Of those that suggested a specific length, some recommended that the Bureau adopt a specific effective date, ranging from October 1, 2018 to January 1, 2020. Other commenters suggested that the new effective date should depend on the publication date of this final rule, generally arguing for an effective date of 12 to 18 months after publication.
Regardless of the specific length of time requested for an extension, commenters requesting an extension offered similar arguments in support of their request for more time. Generally speaking, these commenters argued that once the Bureau issued this final rule, industry would need to review and analyze it, coordinate with internal and external parties to create a compliance plan, and implement the plan. Some commenters suggested that the amendments proposed by the Bureau in the June 2017 Proposal diverged significantly from the requirements of the 2016 Final Rule and, if adopted, implementing them would require additional compliance time. Specifically, some commenters raised concerns that any required changes to retail packaging would take significant time to implement, given the significant number of vendors and other outside companies involved in that process. Several commenters also referenced the “freeze” period many prepaid account programs are subject to during the winter holiday season that would make it difficult to adopt the sorts of changes contemplated by the Prepaid Accounts Rule and the June 2017 Proposal during that time. The level of detail regarding the extent of these logistical challenges varied by commenter. One trade association and one program manager provided detailed timelines regarding implementation; these commenters requested that the Bureau extend the effective date to April 1, 2019.
A digital wallet provider specifically argued that, if the Bureau did not address certain issues relating to negative balances on prepaid accounts linked to credit cards, it would need additional time to develop systems to address those situations. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.61(a)(4) above, the Bureau believes that the final rule addresses those concerns such that this commenter would not need to modify its systems in the way described in its comment letter.
In addition, commenters raised other specific points that they contended warranted a further extension of the effective date. Two trade associations and a business advocacy group argued that, even if the Bureau had not proposed further changes to the Prepaid Accounts Rule, an effective date of April 1, 2018 still gave insufficient time for industry to implement the rule. One of the trade associations based its argument in part on an assertion that, notwithstanding the Bureau's decision to allow financial institutions to sell through packaging manufactured in the normal course of business prior to the effective date, continuing to sell prepaid accounts with out-of-date packaging and disclosures that no longer describe how the product will work could lead to consumer confusion or expose institutions to potential charges from the Federal Trade Commission or State attorneys general for unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.
A trade association representing technology companies suggested that the Bureau should take additional time to review the Prepaid Accounts Rule and make changes to the rule, particularly to exempt digital wallets from the rule. A trade association representing the prepaid industry argued that additional time was required to allow industry to implement additional changes necessitated by the Bureau's rule regarding pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
Most commenters' requests for further extensions of the effective date were based on their estimates of how long it would take them to comply with the Prepaid Accounts Rule, as amended by this final rule. However, some commenters pointed to other factors. For example, one trade association argued that combining the rule's general effective date with the effective date of the requirement for prepaid account issuers to submit their agreements to the Bureau would reduce confusion arising from multiple dates, and suggested making both dates October 1, 2018. Several industry commenters, in requesting that the Bureau extend the effective date by another year, to April 1, 2019, argued that an April effective date would avoid disruption and the diversion of critical resources during the holiday period, during which, they said, it is often difficult for industry to make significant changes to prepaid account programs. Another trade association suggested that it would take until January 1, 2020 for the Bureau to address the issues raised in the June 2017 Proposal and for industry to comply with any resulting changes.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau believes it is necessary and appropriate to extend the general effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule by an additional 12 months, to April 1, 2019. The Bureau is likewise extending the effective date of § 1005.19(b) for the agreement submission requirement to April 1, 2019. The rule will thus have one effective date, April 1, 2019, for all of its provisions.
The Bureau acknowledges that the amendments regarding error resolution and limited liability protections on unverified prepaid accounts may require some financial institutions to change language on or in retail packaging. This may be particularly true for those financial institutions that will not offer error resolution and limited liability protections on unverified prepaid accounts but will allow consumers to use them.
The Bureau notes that the other revisions to the Prepaid Accounts Rule adopted in this final rule do not generally impose new obligations on financial institutions and other participants in the prepaid industry. Rather, as discussed in detail in the section-by-section analysis of part V above, these amendments generally relieve burden, provide industry with additional flexibility in complying with the rule, or clarify provisions that were identified as being potentially ambiguous. Thus, the Bureau does not believe that these other revisions in the final rule should significantly increase the amount of time that industry will need to comply with the rule, even if some additional time is needed to modify systems for entities that wish to take full advantage of the additional flexibility provided by the amendments in this final rule.
However, given the concerns raised by industry regarding the time needed to comply with the Prepaid Accounts Rule, including the amendments finalized herein, the Bureau believes that a further extension of the effective date to April 1, 2019 is sufficient for industry to comply with the rule. Given the compliance concerns raised by commenters and the timing of this final rule, the Bureau is concerned that a six month extension of the effective date (to October 1, 2018) suggested by some commenters may not provide enough time, particularly as several commenters suggested that date assuming that this final rule would be issued in the fall of 2017. As noted by several commenters, an effective date during the winter holiday season would likely create significant complications for industry, given the common “freeze” period many prepaid account programs are subject to during that time of year. Thus, the Bureau believes that it is appropriate to provide an additional year for industry to comply with the Prepaid Accounts Rule, as amended by this final rule. Extending the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to April 1, 2019 will ensure that industry has sufficient time to implement the rule while also ensuring that consumers maintain access to prepaid accounts during the implementation period and after the rule's effective date.
To implement this effective date delay, the Bureau is making conforming changes in §§ 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D), (h), and 1005.19 and the commentary accompanying § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D) and (E), and (h), and removing the commentary that accompanied § 1005.19(f).
The Bureau will continue its efforts to support industry implementation of the Prepaid Accounts Rule, as amended by this final rule, including by monitoring industry's implementation efforts, and expects that continued engagement and dialogue will assist industry in complying with the rule.
In response to the 2017 Effective Date Proposal, two trade association commenters urged the Bureau to establish a safe harbor for financial institutions that comply with the Prepaid Accounts Rule (or portions of it) prior to the rule's effective date. These commenters were concerned that financial institutions may be exposed to potential liability if they comply early, suggesting the possibility that there may be some conflict between the Prepaid Accounts Rule and current requirements for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts, though these commenters did not provide any specific examples. In response to those concerns, in the 2017 Effective Date Final Rule as well as the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau noted its agreement that early compliance could benefit both industry and consumers, and stated that it was not aware of any conflicts between the requirements of the Prepaid Accounts Rule and current Federal regulations applying to accounts that will be covered by the rule.
Several industry trade association commenters and a think tank requested that the Bureau provide a safe harbor to ensure that early compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Rule will not expose financial institutions to liability, although commenters did not put forth specific theories of liability.
One trade association identified what it described as inconsistencies between current rules for government benefit accounts under Regulation E and the Prepaid Accounts Rule, in cases where the government agency elects to take advantage of the respective provisions in the current rules and the Prepaid Accounts Rule allowing for an alternative to providing a periodic statement.
The Bureau continues to believe that early compliance may benefit both industry and consumers. However, after having carefully considered the issue as described below, the Bureau does not believe that a specific provision for early compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Rule is warranted.
Specifically, the Bureau considered early compliance issues with regard to two separate types of products that will be subject to the Prepaid Accounts Rule: Those that are not currently covered by Regulation E, and those that are (namely, payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts, as well as cards receiving Federal payments via a Treasury rule that requires compliance with the payroll card rules in Regulation E).
With respect to the examples offered by one commenter relating to government benefit accounts, the Bureau believes that agencies and other financial institutions that move to early compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Rule would only be out of compliance with existing rules in two extraordinarily narrow circumstances that could easily be avoided by appropriate action during the transition period.
The Bureau believes that rewriting the Prepaid Accounts Rule to allow industry to take advantage of the additional compliance options it permits in these two narrow circumstances before April 1, 2019 would be unduly complex, and that both industry and consumers will be best served by maintaining the same effective date for all prepaid accounts. In particular, to take advantage of the additional compliance options in the context of government benefit accounts, financial institutions would need to be in full compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Rule's periodic statement alternative (on which the modified timing requirements are based) as well; initial disclosures regarding access to account information and error resolution/limited liability protections would also be implicated. Providing a safe harbor in this instance would thus necessitate an earlier effective date for the portions of the rule governing government benefit accounts coupled with a subsequent mandatory compliance date; the Bureau believes such an approach would be complicated, cause industry confusion, and run contrary to the Bureau's intentions in further extending the Prepaid Accounts Rule's overall effective date to April 1, 2019.
At the same time, the Bureau does not believe that the lack of a specific provision for early compliance imposes a burden on financial institutions, including government agencies, as the only cost to those entities will be delaying the date on which they activate systems that permit error resolution and limited liability claims to be resolved under the new timeframes established by the Prepaid Accounts Rule and cease to send annual error resolution notices in lieu of providing electronic and written account histories with such notices.
As noted above, aside from this minor issue, the Bureau believes that early compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Rule may benefit both industry and consumers. The Bureau will continue its outreach to industry over the course of the implementation period to understand industry's ongoing experience in implementing the Prepaid Accounts Rule and monitor whether other concerns arise regarding perceived conflicts between current regulations and the Prepaid Accounts Rule.
In developing this final rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts as required by section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 1022(b)(2) calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of consumer access to consumer financial products or services, the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in rural areas. In addition, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(B) directs the Bureau to consult, before and during the rulemaking, with appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal agencies regarding consistency with the objectives those agencies administer. The Bureau consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Department of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives they administer.
The baseline
The major provisions of this final rule addressed in this discussion include:
• Amending the Prepaid Accounts Rule to provide that Regulation E's error resolution and limited liability requirements do not extend to prepaid accounts that have not successfully completed the financial institution's consumer identification and verification process;
• Creating a limited exception to the credit-related provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule by narrowing the Prepaid
• No longer considering incidental credit extended through a negative balance on a prepaid account to be subject to Regulation Z where a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is attached to the prepaid account, provided certain conditions are met; and
• Extending the overall effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Rule to April 1, 2019.
In addition to these changes, the Bureau is making clarifications and minor adjustments to certain other discrete aspects of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. Like the major provisions discussed, these clarifications and minor adjustments will provide industry participants with additional options for compliance and should not increase burden on covered persons. In addition, the Bureau does not believe that this final rule's minor modifications to the Prepaid Accounts Rule's disclosure requirements will appreciably decrease transparency or have an adverse impact on informed consumer choice.
In considering the relevant potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this final rule, the Bureau has applied its knowledge and expertise concerning consumer financial markets. Although the Bureau did not receive comments specific to its consideration of the benefits, costs, and impacts of the June 2017 Proposal, the Bureau has considered the comments on the substantive proposal in considering the relevant potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this final rule. Because the Prepaid Accounts Rule is not yet in effect and this final rule addresses potential impacts of the Prepaid Accounts Rule on some industry participants for a subset of their prepaid accounts, this discussion of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts on consumers and covered persons, evaluated relative to the baseline established by that rule, is largely qualitative.
This final rule generally decreases the burden incurred by industry participants and provides covered persons with more options for complying with the provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. As described in more detail below, the Bureau does not believe that this final rule's provisions will reduce consumer access to consumer financial products and services. In particular, the provisions relating to error resolution and limited liability for unverified accounts may increase consumer access to consumer financial products and services relative to the baseline established by the Prepaid Accounts Rule.
Covered persons will avoid the burdens associated with providing Regulation E's error resolution and limited liability protections for those prepaid accounts held by consumers who have not successfully completed the consumer identification and verification process.
During the Bureau's outreach efforts to industry regarding implementation and in comments submitted on the June 2017 Proposal, industry participants expressed concern that offering error resolution and limited liability protections for holders of unverified accounts, in particular, would significantly increase fraud risk. These industry participants mentioned various changes in functionality or processes that could mitigate this risk. For example, commenters asserted that financial institutions would limit pre-verification functionality on accounts. In pre-proposal outreach, some financial institutions told the Bureau that they believed that they would need to replace retail packaging to accurately reflect this decreased functionality, notwithstanding the Bureau's decision to allow financial institutions to use non-compliant packaging manufactured in the normal course of business prior to the effective date. In pre-proposal outreach and in response to the June 2017 Proposal, industry representatives suggested that financial institutions may issue paper checks to consumers holding unverified accounts in various scenarios, including when a consumer fails the verification process (instead of allowing the consumer to spend down the balance) and when a transaction on an unverified account is disputed (to decrease the likelihood that further errors are asserted on the account).
In addition to the direct cost associated with investigating errors and providing funds in response to claims by holders of unverified accounts, covered persons, under the requirements of the 2016 Final Rule, would incur costs in changing account functionality or refund processes. By
Consumers holding or desiring to hold unverified prepaid accounts may both derive benefits and incur costs from this final rule's provisions relative to those benefits and costs they would experience were the baseline requirements established by the Prepaid Accounts Rule in force. Under this final rule, consumers holding unverified accounts will no longer be assured the benefits arising from the Prepaid Accounts Rule's error resolution and limited liability protections. However, if absent this final rule, financial institutions would have attempted to mitigate potential fraud losses by not offering unverified prepaid accounts, consumers desiring to hold unverified accounts would have lost access to such products altogether. In such a scenario, consumers desiring to hold unverified prepaid accounts would be forced to choose a less-desired alternative and would not have enjoyed any of the benefits arising from the Prepaid Accounts Rule's consumer protections (unless that alternative product was a verified prepaid account). Alternatively, if financial institutions would have responded to the Prepaid Accounts Rule's requirement that unverified prepaid accounts offer error resolution and limited liability protections by decreasing the functionality associated with such accounts, this final rule will enable current and future accountholders to retain current functionality on unverified accounts, though they will not enjoy the error resolution and limited liability protections of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. Therefore, as a result of this final rule, consumers holding unverified prepaid accounts (or those desiring to hold unverified accounts) may experience increased product access or functionality relative to the baseline.
In addition to these impacts on consumers holding or desiring to hold unverified prepaid accounts, consumers holding verified prepaid accounts may also benefit relative to the baseline established by the Prepaid Accounts Rule's requirement that financial institutions offer error resolution and limited liability protections for unverified accounts. Under the Prepaid Accounts Rule, financial institutions may have raised prices to account for forecasted or actual fraud resulting from providing error resolution and limited liability protections on unverified accounts. This final rule allows financial institutions to avoid such costs. Financial institutions may pass through some portion of the cost savings to holders of verified accounts by lowering prices, or they may invest cost savings into innovation efforts to create higher quality products.
In terms of alternatives, the Bureau considered applying error resolution and limited liability protections to pre-verification transactions for those accounts later verified. The Bureau also considered applying these protections to only those pre-verification transactions occurring within a specified time (such as 30 days) prior to account verification. Although those approaches would have decreased the risk that holders of unverified accounts would experience a loss of funds in the event of an unauthorized transaction or other error, covered persons would have incurred the burdens associated with providing these protections (including any attendant fraud losses) for pre-verification transactions. Commenters stated that financial institutions rely on verified consumer information to identify fraudulent transactions when they are attempted. Therefore, even if the accountholder's identity is verified later, the financial institution is unable to leverage verified consumer information to limit fraud exposure on pre-verification transactions, thereby driving up costs. The Bureau's approach provides more incentive for consumers to verify accounts upon acquisition and, by so doing, may increase investigation speed (and decrease the costs associated with conducting those investigations), relative to these alternatives. The Bureau's approach should decrease uncertainty regarding responsibilities and liabilities among industry participants.
Although the Bureau believes that few industry participants will be impacted directly by the Prepaid Accounts Rule's credit-related provisions, this change will relieve burden for those industry participants that currently qualify for the exception and will decrease the cost incurred by industry participants entering into qualifying relationships in the future. For example, under the Prepaid Accounts Rule's prior definition of “business partner,” a provider of a digital wallet that could store funds that had a cross-marketing arrangement with a credit card issuer could have been subject to those provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule applicable to covered separate credit features accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card if the prepaid card from time to time could access credit from the credit card account in the course of a transaction to obtain goods or services, obtain cash, or conduct P2P transfers. Among other things, the digital wallet provider would have been required to wait 30 days after the digital wallet account was registered before allowing a consumer to add a credit card account issued by a “business partner,” though there would be no such required waiting period for credit card accounts offered by unaffiliated card issuers with whom there is no such relationship. Under the 2016 Final Rule, this requirement applied even if the credit card account was subject to the provisions of Regulation Z that apply to credit card accounts in its own right.
Because the Bureau narrowly tailored this amendment, consumers likely will not incur many costs as a result. For example, § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
In addition, this change helps to decrease the likelihood of consumer confusion. Absent this final rule's amendment to the definition of “business partner,” there would be more instances in which the Prepaid Accounts Rule's provisions would apply to some, but not all, of the credit card accounts provisioned to a consumer's digital wallet. This uneven application could have resulted in increased consumer confusion relative to the approach taken in this final rule because credit card payment credentials stored within the same digital wallet would have been subject to different disclosure regimes and use restrictions with greater frequency than will be experienced under this final rule's approach. By helping to foster uniformity in application and therefore increasing transparency, this final rule's amendment to the definition of “business partner” will benefit these consumers.
As discussed above, the Bureau also considered changing the basis for qualifying for the exception in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D), including extending the exception to apply to credit card accounts offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate as well as allowing providers to vary certain terms and conditions based on whether the prepaid account and the credit card account are linked. The Bureau did not adopt these changes in this final rule. The Bureau believes that the approach taken in this final rule more adequately ensures the separation and independence of linked prepaid and credit card accounts and thereby leads to better-informed consumer choice. The Bureau believes that conditioning the exception on the requirement that providers not vary terms and conditions based on whether the prepaid account and the credit card account are linked will help to ensure that consumers' decisions about account acquisition, retention, and link authorization are simpler and less prone to undue pressure (and thereby do not require the protections provided by the tailored provisions in Regulations Z and E applicable only to covered separate credit features and linked prepaid accounts). Nonetheless, the Bureau does not believe that these safeguards would be sufficient to protect consumers when the prepaid account and the credit card account are offered by entities under common control. The Bureau believes that ensuring separation and independence is more complicated when both accounts are issued by entities under common control, particularly given that offset, security interest, and other types of linkages may be present.
The Bureau also considered requiring that card issuers comply with § 1026.12(d)(3)(ii), which permits a written plan authorizing periodic deductions from the prepaid account only if the deductions are no more frequent than once per calendar month, to qualify for the exception, as suggested by consumer advocate commenters. The Bureau is not adopting such a requirement in this final rule. The Bureau believes that adding such a repayment provision, which would impose an additional burden on industry, is not necessary given the consumer protections already offered by limits on repayment terms.
Broadening the exception in § 1026.61(a)(4) to include those situations where a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is attached to the prepaid account, provided the other requirements in § 1026.61(a)(4) are met, enables industry participants to avoid several operational costs that they might incur in preventing negative balances on the prepaid account when a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is attached. These costs would have included building Regulation Z-compliant systems to hold otherwise permissible negative balances
Although the negative balance may be repaid from the next incoming deposit because the offset provisions in § 1026.12(d) will not apply in these cases, consumers may benefit from this provision relative to the baseline even though they may have less control of their funds. For example, one commenter indicated that incidental credit that is charged to the linked covered separate credit feature would likely be deemed a cash advance by the card issuer, subjecting the customer to interest and fees. This final rule's approach helps to avoid that outcome. Further, without the exception in § 1026.61(a)(4), it is possible that a prepaid account issuer would build Regulation Z-compliant systems to hold otherwise permissible negative balances in separate subaccounts when business partner credit cards are linked. Consumers could be confused by the presence of subaccounts, especially to the extent that the trigger for their creation (whether a linked credit card is issued by the prepaid account issuer's business partner) may not be transparent to the consumer.
The Bureau considered multiple alternative approaches to address the treatment of incidental credit structured as a negative balance. This final rule's approach is more permissive than that articulated in the June 2017 Proposal, which would not have permitted those situations where a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner is attached to the prepaid account to qualify for the negative balance exception in § 1026.61(a)(4). As observed by commenters, the Bureau's approach in this final rule relieves operational burden for prepaid account issuers and avoids potential consumer confusion.
The Bureau also considered broadening the exception for incidental credit structured as a negative balance to include situations in which a covered separate credit feature offered by the prepaid issuer or its affiliate is attached to the prepaid account. However, the Bureau believes that the operational concerns that arise when a business partner offers a covered separate credit feature do not arise when the issuer or its affiliate offers the feature. In particular, the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate, in these cases, would already offer Regulation Z-compliant covered separate credit feature. The Bureau believes when the same or affiliated parties offer both the prepaid account and the covered separate credit feature, they will encounter fewer difficulties in charging the incidental credit to the covered separate credit feature or waiving interest and fees on the incidental credit when it is charged to the covered separate credit feature.
The Bureau has no reason to believe that the additional flexibility offered to covered persons by this final rule will differentially affect consumers in rural areas. The Bureau requested comment regarding the impact of the June 2017 Proposal's provisions on consumers in rural areas and how those impacts may differ from those experienced by consumers generally. The Bureau did not receive any comments directly addressing this issue in response to that request.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act,
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Bureau's director certified that the June 2017 Proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required.
As discussed above, this final rule amends certain provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule. Specifically, the Bureau is amending the Prepaid Accounts Rule so that it no longer requires financial institutions to resolve errors or limit consumers' liability on unverified prepaid accounts (other than payroll card accounts or government benefit accounts). In addition, the Bureau is creating a limited exception to the credit-related provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule by narrowing the Prepaid Accounts Rule's definition of “business partner” in Regulation Z so that it no longer includes certain arrangements between prepaid account issuers and credit card issuers that offer traditional credit card products.
This final rule's amendments generally benefit small entities by providing additional flexibility with respect to their implementation of the Prepaid Accounts Rule and will not increase burden on small entities. In particular, the credit-related amendments address certain complications that arise when a covered separate credit feature is attached to a digital wallet, and the Bureau believes that, at present, few small entities will be affected by the relevant provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Rule or these amendments.
Those small entities offering unverified prepaid accounts will benefit from avoiding the burdens associated with providing Regulation E's error resolution and limited liability protections for prepaid accounts held by consumers who have not successfully completed the consumer identification and verification process. In addition, any increase in fraud risk arising from the Prepaid Accounts Rule's requirement that financial institutions offer error resolution and limited liability protections to consumers holding unregistered accounts may be avoided. However, these benefits will be limited if small entities tend not to distribute prepaid accounts that can be used before verification or that offer significant pre-verification functionality.
In summary, this final rule will not increase costs incurred by small entities relative to the baseline established by the Prepaid Accounts Rule because this rulemaking's amendments provide additional flexibility to financial institutions with respect to how they may comply with the Prepaid Accounts Rule. Small entities retain the option of complying with the Prepaid Accounts Rule as it existed prior to these modifications. Therefore, small entities will not experience a significant economic impact as a result of this final rule.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
The Bureau did not receive any comments regarding its PRA discussion in the June 2017 Proposal. The Bureau has determined that this final rule amends the Prepaid Accounts Rule to provide firms with additional flexibility and clarity with respect to required disclosures; therefore, it will have only minimal impact on the industry-wide aggregate PRA burden relative to the baseline.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Automated teller machines, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Electronic fund transfers, National banks, Remittance transfers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Advertising, Appraisal, Appraiser, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau is further amending 12 CFR parts 1005 and 1026, as amended November 22, 2016, at 81 FR 83934, and April 25, 2017, at 82 FR 18975, as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1693b. Subpart B is also issued under 12 U.S.C. 5601 and 15 U.S.C. 1693o-1.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The institution requires but does not receive written confirmation within 10 business days of an oral notice of error; or
(B) The alleged error involves an account that is subject to Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Securities Credit by Brokers and Dealers, 12 CFR part 220).
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(A) The prepaid account access device is contained inside the packaging material.
(B) The disclosure required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section is provided on or are visible through an outward-facing, external surface of a prepaid account access device's packaging material.
(C) The disclosure required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section includes the information set forth in paragraph (b)(2)(xiii) of this section that allows a consumer to access the information required to be disclosed by paragraph (b)(4) of this section by telephone and via a website.
(D) The long form disclosure required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section is provided after the consumer acquires the prepaid account. If a financial institution does not provide the long form disclosure inside the prepaid account packaging material, and it is not otherwise already mailing or delivering to the consumer written account-related communications within 30 days of obtaining the consumer's contact information, it may provide the long form disclosure pursuant to this paragraph in electronic form without regard to the consumer notice and consent requirements of section 101(c) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001
(iii) * * *
(C) The long form disclosure required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section is provided after the consumer acquires the prepaid account.
(2) * * *
(ix) * * *
(C)
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(C)
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(9) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) The financial institution provides a means for the consumer to acquire a prepaid account by telephone or electronically principally in a foreign language. However, foreign language pre-acquisition disclosures are not required for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts where the foreign language is offered by telephone via a real-time language interpretation service provided by a third party or by the employer or government agency on an informal or ad hoc basis as an accommodation to prospective payroll card account or government benefit account holders.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(e) * * *
(3)
(ii) For purposes of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, a financial institution has not successfully completed its consumer identification and verification process where:
(A) The financial institution has not concluded its consumer identification and verification process with respect to a particular prepaid account, provided that it has disclosed to the consumer the risks of not registering and verifying the account using a notice that is substantially similar to the model notice contained in paragraph (c) of appendix A-7 of this part.
(B) The financial institution has concluded its consumer identification and verification process with respect to a particular prepaid account, but could not verify the identity of the consumer, provided that it has disclosed to the consumer the risks of not registering and verifying the account using a notice that is substantially similar to the model notice contained in paragraph (c) of appendix A-7 of this part; or
(C) The financial institution does not have a consumer identification and verification process for the prepaid account program, provided that it has made the alternative disclosure described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and complies with the process it has disclosed.
(iii)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(A) Such time as the issuer is otherwise submitting an amended agreement or changes to other identifying information about the issuer and its submitted agreements pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section; or
(B) May 1 of each year, for any updates to the list of names of other relevant parties for that agreement that occurred between the issuer's last submission of relevant party information and April 1 of that year.
(6) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(f)
(a)
You may obtain information about the amount of money you have remaining in
[For accounts that are or can be registered:] [If your account is registered with us,] You also have the right to obtain at least 24 months of written history of account transactions by calling [telephone number], or by writing us at [address]. You will not be charged a fee for this information unless you request it more than once per month.
(b)
In Case of Errors or Questions About Your Prepaid Account Telephone us at [telephone number] or Write us at [address] [or email us at [email address]] as soon as you can, if you think an error has occurred in your prepaid account. We must allow you to report an error until 60 days after the earlier of the date you electronically access your account, if the error could be viewed in your electronic history, or the date we sent the FIRST written history on which the error appeared. You may request a written history of your transactions at any time by calling us at [telephone number] or writing us at [address]. You will need to tell us:
Your name and [prepaid account] number.
Why you believe there is an error, and the dollar amount involved.
Approximately when the error took place.
If you tell us orally, we may require that you send us your complaint or question in writing within 10 business days.
We will determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days after we hear from you and will correct any error promptly. If we need more time, however, we may take up to 45 days to investigate your complaint or question. If we decide to do this, [and your account is registered with us,] we will credit your account within 10 business days for the amount you think is in error, so that you will have the money during the time it takes us to complete our investigation. If we ask you to put your complaint or question in writing and we do not receive it within 10 business days, we may not credit your account. [Keep reading to learn more about how to register your card.]
For errors involving new accounts, point-of-sale, or foreign-initiated transactions, we may take up to 90 days to investigate your complaint or question. For new accounts, we may take up to 20 business days to credit your account for the amount you think is in error.
We will tell you the results within three business days after completing our investigation. If we decide that there was no error, we will send you a written explanation.
You may ask for copies of the documents that we used in our investigation.
If you need more information about our error-resolution procedures, call us at [telephone number] [the telephone number shown above] [or visit [internet address]].
(c)
It is important to register your prepaid account as soon as possible. Until you register your account and we verify your identity, we are not required to research or resolve any errors regarding your account. To register your account, go to [internet address] or call us at [telephone number]. We will ask you for identifying information about yourself (including your full name, address, date of birth, and [Social Security Number] [government-issued identification number]), so that we can verify your identity.
The revisions read as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
i. An account's primary function is to enable a consumer to conduct transactions with multiple, unaffiliated merchants for goods or services, at automated teller machines, or to conduct person-to-person transfers, even if the account also enables a third party to disburse funds to a consumer. For example, a prepaid account that conveys tax refunds or insurance proceeds to a consumer meets the primary function test if the account can be used,
ii. Whether an account satisfies § 1005.2(b)(3)(i)(D) is determined by reference to the account, not the access device associated with the account. An account satisfies § 1005.2(b)(3)(i)(D) even if the account's access device can be used for other purposes, for example, as a form of identification. Such accounts may include, for example, a prepaid account used to disburse student loan proceeds via a card device that can be used at unaffiliated merchants or to withdraw cash from an automated teller machine, even if that access device also acts as a student identification card.
iii. Where multiple accounts are associated with the same access device, the primary function of each account is determined separately. One or more accounts can satisfy § 1005.2(b)(3)(i)(D) even if other accounts associated with the same access device do not. For example, a student identification card may act as an access device associated with two separate accounts: An account used to conduct transactions with multiple, unaffiliated merchants for goods or services, and an account used to conduct closed-loop transactions on campus. The account used to conduct transactions with multiple, unaffiliated merchants for goods or services satisfies § 1005.2(b)(3)(i)(D), even though the account used to conduct closed-loop transactions does not (and as such the latter is not a prepaid account as defined by § 1005.2(b)(3)).
iv. An account satisfies § 1005.2(b)(3)(i)(D) if its primary function is to provide general transaction capability, even if an individual consumer does not in fact use it to conduct multiple transactions. For example, the fact that a consumer may choose to withdraw the entire account balance at an automated teller machine or transfer it to another account held by the consumer does not change the fact that the account's primary function is to provide general transaction capability.
v. An account whose primary function is other than to conduct transactions with multiple, unaffiliated merchants for goods or services, or at automated teller machines, or to conduct person-to-person transfers, does not satisfy § 1005.2(b)(3)(i)(D). Such accounts may include, for example, a product whose only function is to make a one-time transfer of funds into a separate prepaid account.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
i. For purposes of § 1005.18(b)(1)(i), a consumer acquires a prepaid account by purchasing, opening or choosing to be paid via a prepaid account, as illustrated by the following examples:
A. A consumer inquires about obtaining a prepaid account at a branch location of a bank. A consumer then receives the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b). After receiving the disclosures, a consumer then opens a prepaid account with the bank. This consumer received the short form and long form pre-acquisition in accordance with § 1005.18(b)(1)(i).
B. A consumer learns that he or she can receive wages via a payroll card account, at which time the consumer is provided with a payroll card and the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) to review. The consumer then chooses to receive wages via a payroll card account. These disclosures were provided pre-acquisition in compliance with § 1005.18(b)(1)(i). By contrast, if a consumer receives the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) to review at the end of the first pay period, after the consumer received the first payroll payment on the payroll card, these disclosures were provided to a consumer post-acquisition, and thus not provided in compliance with § 1005.18(b)(1)(i).
ii. Section 1005.18(b)(1)(i) permits delivery of the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) at the time the consumer receives the prepaid account, rather than prior to acquisition, for prepaid accounts that are used for disbursing funds to consumers when the financial institution or third party making the disbursement does not offer any alternative means for the consumer to receive those funds in lieu of accepting the prepaid account. For example, a utility company refunds consumers' initial deposits for its utility services via prepaid accounts delivered to consumers by mail. Neither the utility company nor the financial institution that issues the prepaid accounts offer another means for a consumer to receive that refund other than by accepting the prepaid account. In this case, the financial institution may provide the disclosures required by § 1005.18(b) together with the prepaid account (
2.
i. A financial institution presents the short form disclosure required by § 1005.18(b)(2), together with the information required by § 1005.18(b)(5), and the long form disclosure required by § 1005.18(b)(4) on the same web page. A consumer must view the web page before choosing to accept the prepaid account.
ii. A financial institution presents the short form disclosure required by
iii. A financial institution presents on a web page the short form disclosure required by § 1005.18(b)(2), together with the information required by § 1005.18(b)(5), followed by the initial disclosures required by § 1005.7(b), which contains the long form disclosure required by § 1005.18(b)(4), in accordance with § 1005.18(f)(1). The financial institution includes, after the short form disclosure or as part of the statement required by § 1005.18(b)(2)(xiii), a link that directs the consumer to the section of the initial disclosures containing the long form disclosure pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(4). A consumer must view this web page before choosing to accept the prepaid account.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
i.
A.
B.
ii.
A.
B.
C.
D.
iii.
A.
B.
C.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
A.
B.
C.
ix.
3.
4.
1.
i. A financial institution that has one additional fee type and discloses that additional fee type pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) might provide the statements required by § 1005.18(b)(2)(viii)(A) and (B) together as: “We charge 1 other type of fee. It is:”.
ii. A financial institution that has five additional fee types and discloses one of those additional fee types pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) might provide the statements required by § 1005.18(b)(2)(viii)(A) and (B) together as: “We charge 5 other types of fees. Here is 1 of them:”.
iii. A financial institution that has two additional fee types and discloses both of those fee types pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) might provide the statement required by § 1005.18(b)(2)(viii)(A) and (B) together as: “We charge 2 other types of fees. They are:”.
1.
2.
3.
4.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
5.
i.
ii.
iii.
1.
i. A financial institution has a prepaid account program with only one fee type that satisfies the criteria in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(A) and thus, pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(A), the financial institution must disclose that one fee type. The prepaid account program has three other fee types that generate revenue from consumers, but they do not exceed the de minimis threshold or otherwise satisfy the criteria in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(B). Pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(B), the financial institution is not required to make any additional disclosure, but it may choose to disclose one of the three fee types that do not meet the criteria in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(A).
ii. A financial institution has a prepaid account program with four fee types that generate revenue from consumers, but none exceeds the de minimis threshold or otherwise satisfy the criteria in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(A). Pursuant to § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(B), the financial institution is not required to make any disclosure, but it may choose to disclose one or two of the fee types that do not meet the criteria in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(A).
2.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
1.
1.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
i.
ii.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
18(b)(7)(ii) Prominence and Size
1.
2. “
1.
1.
i.
A. The financial institution principally uses a foreign language on the packaging material of a prepaid account sold in a retail location or distributed at a bank or credit union branch, even though a few words appear in English on the packaging.
B. The financial institution principally uses a foreign language in a television advertisement for a prepaid account. That advertisement includes a telephone number a consumer can call to acquire the prepaid account, whether by speaking to a customer service representative or interacting with an interactive voice response (IVR) system.
C. The financial institution principally uses a foreign language in an online advertisement for a prepaid account. That advertisement includes a website URL through which a consumer can acquire the prepaid account.
D. The financial institution principally uses a foreign language on a printed advertisement for a prepaid account. That advertisement includes a telephone number or a website URL a consumer can call or visit to acquire the prepaid account. The pre-acquisition disclosures must be provided to the consumer in that same foreign language prior to the consumer acquiring the prepaid account.
E. The financial institution does not principally use a foreign language on prepaid account packaging material nor does it principally use a foreign language to advertise, solicit, or market a prepaid account. A consumer calls the financial institution and has the option to proceed with the prepaid account acquisition process in a foreign language, whether by speaking to a customer service representative or interacting with an IVR system. (But see § 1005.18(b)(9)(i)(C), which limits the obligation to provide foreign language disclosures for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts acquired orally by telephone in certain circumstances.)
F. The financial institution does not principally use a foreign language on prepaid account packaging material nor does it principally use a foreign language to advertise, solicit, or market a prepaid account. A consumer visits the financial institution's website. On that website, the consumer has the option to proceed with the prepaid account acquisition process in a foreign language.
ii.
A. A consumer visits the financial institution's branch location in person and speaks to an employee in a foreign language about acquiring a prepaid account. The consumer proceeds with the acquisition process in that foreign language.
B. The financial institution does not principally use a foreign language on prepaid account packaging material nor does it principally use a foreign language to advertise, solicit, or market
C. The financial institution principally uses a foreign language in an advertisement for a prepaid account. That advertisement includes a telephone number a consumer can call to acquire the prepaid account. The consumer calls the telephone number provided on the advertisement and has the option to proceed with the prepaid account acquisition process in English or in a foreign language. The consumer chooses to proceed with the acquisition process in English.
D. A consumer calls a government agency to enroll in a government benefits program. The government agency does not offer through its telephone system an option for consumers to proceed in a foreign language. An employee of the government agency assists the consumer with the enrollment process, including helping the consumer acquire a government benefits account. The employee also happens to speak the foreign language in which the consumer is most comfortable communicating, and chooses to communicate with the consumer in that language to facilitate the enrollment process. In this case, the employee offered language interpretation assistance on an informal or ad hoc basis to accommodate the prospective government benefits account holder.
2.
3.
i. Messages in a leaflet, promotional flyer, newspaper, or magazine.
ii. Electronic messages, such as on a website or mobile application.
iii. Telephone solicitations.
iv. Solicitations sent to the consumer by mail or email.
v. Television or radio commercials.
4.
1.
2.
3.
i. A financial institution may assess a fee or charge to a consumer for responding to subsequent requests for written account transaction history made in a single calendar month. For example, if a consumer requests written account transaction history on June 1 and makes another request on August 5, the financial institution may not assess a fee or charge to the consumer for responding to either request. However, if the consumer requests written account transaction history on June 1 and then makes another request on June 15, the financial institution may assess a fee or charge to the consumer for responding to the request made on June 15, as this is the second response in the same month.
ii. If a financial institution maintains more than 24 months of written account transaction history, it may assess a fee or charge to the consumer for providing a written history for transactions occurring more than 24 months preceding the date the financial institution receives the consumer's request, provided the consumer specifically requests the written account transaction history for that time period.
iii. If a financial institution offers a consumer the ability to request automatic mailings of written account transaction history on a monthly or other periodic basis, it may assess a fee or charge for such automatic mailings but not for the written account transaction history requested pursuant to § 1005.18(c)(1)(iii).
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
i.
ii.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ii.
1.
1.
i. Addition or deletion of a provision giving the issuer or consumer a right under the agreement, such as a clause that allows an issuer to unilaterally change the terms of an agreement.
ii. Addition or deletion of a provision giving the issuer or consumer an obligation under the agreement, such as a clause requiring the consumer to pay an additional fee.
iii. Changes that may affect the cost of the prepaid account to the consumer, such as changes in a provision describing how the prepaid account's monthly fee will be calculated.
iv. Changes that may affect how the terms of the agreement are construed or applied, such as changes to a choice of law provision.
v. Changes that may affect the parties to whom the agreement may apply, such as changes to provisions regarding authorized users or assignment of the agreement.
vi. Changes to the corporate name of the issuer or program manager, or to the issuer's address or identifying number, such as its RSSD ID number or tax identification number.
vii. Changes to the list of names of other relevant parties, such as the employer for a payroll card program or the agency for a government benefit program. But see § 1005.19(b)(2)(ii) regarding the timing of submitting such changes to the Bureau.
viii. Changes to the name of the prepaid account program to which the agreement applies.
2.
i. Correction of typographical errors that do not affect the meaning of any terms of the agreement.
ii. Changes to the issuer's corporate logo or tagline.
iii. Changes to the format of the agreement, such as conversion to a booklet from a full-sheet format, changes in font, or changes in margins.
iv. Reordering sections of the agreement without affecting the meaning of any terms of the agreement.
v. Adding, removing, or modifying a table of contents or index.
vi. Changes to titles, headings, section numbers, or captions.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
i. An issuer first submits to the Bureau a payroll card agreement, along with a list of names of the other relevant parties (
ii. On January 1, 2020, a change to the payroll card agreement becomes effective reflecting a new feature and accompanying fee that the issuer has added to the program. The issuer is required, by January 31, 2020, to submit to the Bureau its entire revised agreement and an updated list of the names of other relevant parties to that agreement.
iii. If the issuer has not added any other employers to the agreement by April 1, 2020, the issuer is not required to submit to the Bureau an updated list of names of other relevant parties to that agreement, because the list it previously submitted to the Bureau remains current.
iv. If, however, on March 1, 2020, the issuer adds two new employers under the agreement but makes no other changes to the agreement, then as of April 1 there are new relevant parties to the agreement that the issuer has not submitted to the Bureau. The issuer is required, by May 1, 2020, to submit to the Bureau an updated list of names of other relevant parties to that agreement reflecting the two employers it added in March. Because the issuer has not made any other changes to the agreement since it was submitted in January, the issuer is not required to re-submit the agreement itself by May 1, 2020.
1.
2.
3.
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
(a) * * *
(1)
(iii) With respect to a credit feature structured as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card or a credit card for purposes of this regulation if the conditions set forth in paragraph (a)(4) of this section are met.
(3) * * *
(ii)
(4)
(i) The prepaid card cannot access credit from a covered separate credit feature as described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section that is offered by a prepaid account issuer or its affiliate; and
(5) * * *
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(D)
(
(
(
(
(
The revisions read as follows:
1.
i. A separate credit feature that meets the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) is defined as a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card.
ii. If a prepaid card can access a non-covered separate credit feature as described in § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii), the card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to that credit feature. In that case:
A. Section 1026.4(b)(11) and related commentary do not apply to fees or charges imposed on the non-covered separate credit feature; instead, the general rules set forth in § 1026.4 determine whether these fees or charges are finance charges; and
B. Fees or charges on the asset feature of the prepaid account are not finance charges under § 1026.4 with respect to the non-covered separate credit feature. See comment 61(a)(2)-5.iii for guidance on the applicability of this regulation in connection with non-covered credit features accessible by prepaid cards.
iii. If the prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(4), with regard to that credit, fees charged on the asset feature of the prepaid account in accordance with § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B) are not finance charges.
1.
1.
ii. Where the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses credit from a covered separate credit feature in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing a transaction conducted with the card to obtain goods or services, obtain cash, or conduct person-to-person transfers, any per transaction fees imposed on the asset feature of prepaid accounts, including load and transfer fees, for such credit from the credit feature are comparable only to per transaction fees for each transaction to access funds in the asset feature of a prepaid account that are imposed on prepaid accounts in the same prepaid account program that does not have such a credit feature. Per transaction fees for a transaction that is conducted to load or draw funds into a prepaid account from some other source are not comparable for purposes of § 1026.4(b)(11)(ii). To illustrate:
A. Assume a prepaid account issuer charges $0.50 on prepaid accounts without a covered separate credit feature for each transaction that accesses funds in the asset feature of the prepaid accounts. Also, assume that the prepaid account issuer charges $0.50 per transaction on the asset feature of prepaid accounts in the same prepaid program where the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses credit from a covered separate credit feature in the course of a transaction. In this case, the $0.50 per transaction fee imposed on the asset feature of the prepaid account with a covered separate credit feature is not a finance charge.
B. Assume same facts as in paragraph A above, except that assume the prepaid account issuer charges $1.25 on the asset feature of a prepaid account for each transaction where the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses credit from the covered separate credit feature in the course of the transaction. In this case, the additional $0.75 is a finance charge.
C. Assume a prepaid account issuer charges $0.50 on prepaid accounts without a covered separate credit feature for each transaction that accesses funds in the asset feature of the prepaid accounts. Assume also that the prepaid account issuer charges both a $0.50 per transaction fee and a $1.25 transfer fee on the asset feature of prepaid accounts in the same prepaid program where the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses credit from a covered separate credit feature in the course of a transaction. In this case, both fees charged on a per-transaction basis for the credit transaction (
D. Assume same facts as in paragraph C above, except that assume the prepaid account issuer also charges a load fee of $1.25 whenever funds are transferred or loaded from a separate asset account, such as from a deposit account via a debit card, in the course of a transaction on prepaid accounts without a covered separate credit feature, in addition to charging a $0.50 per transaction fee. The
iii. A consumer may choose in a particular circumstance to draw or transfer credit from the covered separate credit feature outside the course of a transaction conducted with the card to obtain goods or services, obtain cash, or conduct person-to-person transfers. For example, a consumer may use the prepaid card at the prepaid account issuer's website to load funds from the covered separate credit feature outside the course of a transaction conducted with the card to obtain goods or services, obtain cash, or conduct person-to-person transfers.
A. Assume a prepaid account issuer charges a $1.25 load fee to transfer funds from a non-covered separate credit feature, such as a non-covered separate credit card account, into prepaid accounts that do not have a covered separate credit feature and does not charge a fee for a direct deposit of salary from an employer or a direct deposit of government benefits on those prepaid accounts. Assume the prepaid account issuer charges $1.25 on the asset feature of a prepaid account with a covered separate credit feature to load funds from the covered separate credit feature outside the course of a transaction. In this case, the $1.25 fee imposed on the asset feature of the prepaid account with a covered separate credit feature is a finance charge because no fee is charged for a direct deposit of salary from an employer or a direct deposit of government benefits on prepaid accounts without such a credit feature. Fees imposed on prepaid accounts without a covered separate credit feature for a one-time load or transfer of funds from a non-covered separate credit feature are not comparable for purposes of § 1026.4(b)(11)(ii).
B. Assume that a prepaid account issuer charges a $1.25 load fee for a one-time transfer of funds from a separate asset account, such as from a deposit account via a debit card, to a prepaid account without a covered separate credit feature and does not charge a fee for a direct deposit of salary from an employer or a direct deposit of government benefits on those prepaid accounts. Assume the prepaid account issuer charges $1.25 on the asset feature of a prepaid account with a covered separate credit feature to load funds from the covered separate credit feature outside the course of a transaction. In this case, the $1.25 fee imposed on the asset feature of the prepaid account with a covered separate credit feature is a finance charge because no fee is charged for a direct deposit of salary from an employer or a direct deposit of government benefits on prepaid accounts without a covered separate credit feature. Fees imposed on prepaid accounts without a covered separate credit feature for a one-time load or transfer of funds from a separate asset account are not comparable for purposes of § 1026.4(b)(11)(ii).
2.
1.
i. Assume a prepaid account issuer charges a $0.50 per transaction fee on an asset feature of the prepaid account for purchases when a hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses a covered separate credit feature in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing purchase transactions conducted with the card and a $0.50 transaction fee for purchases that access funds in the asset feature of a prepaid account in the same program without such a credit feature. The $0.50 fees are comparable fees and the $0.50 fee for purchases when a hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses a covered separate credit feature in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing purchase transactions conducted with the card is not a charge imposed as part of the plan. However, if in this example, the prepaid account issuer imposes a $1.25 per transaction fee on an asset feature of the prepaid account for purchases when a hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses a covered separate credit feature in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing purchase transactions conducted with the card, the $0.75 excess is a charge imposed as part of the plan. This $0.75 excess also is a finance charge under § 1026.4(b)(11)(ii).
ii. See comment 4(b)(11)(ii)-1 for additional illustrations of when a
1.
i. Assume that a $15 required minimum periodic payment is due on September 25. The card issuer does not receive any payment on or before September 25. On September 26, the card issuer imposes a late payment fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the late payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on September 25 ($15). Thus, under § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the amount of that fee cannot exceed $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).
ii. Same facts as above except that, on September 25, the card issuer receives a $10 payment. No further payments are received. On September 26, the card issuer imposes a late payment fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the late payment is the full amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on September 25 ($15), rather than the unpaid portion of that payment ($5). Thus, under § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the amount of the late payment fee cannot exceed $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).
iii. Assume that a $15 required minimum periodic payment is due on October 28 and the billing cycle for the account closes on October 31. The card issuer does not receive any payment on or before November 3. On November 3, the card issuer determines that the required minimum periodic payment due on November 28 is $50. On November 5, the card issuer imposes a late payment fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the late payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on October 28 ($15), rather than the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on November 28 ($50). Thus, under § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the amount of that fee cannot exceed $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).
2.
i. Assume that the billing cycles for an account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month and that the payment due date is the twenty-fifth day of the month. A minimum payment of $15 is due on March 25. The card issuer receives a check for $100 on March 23, which is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds on March 26. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 ($15). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)). Furthermore, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from assessing both a late payment fee and a returned payment fee in these circumstances.
ii. Same facts as above except that the card issuer receives the $100 check on March 31 and the check is returned for insufficient funds on April 2. The minimum payment due on April 25 is $30. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 ($15), rather than the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on April 25 ($30). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)). Furthermore, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from assessing both a late payment fee and a returned payment fee in these circumstances.
iii. Same facts as paragraph i above except that, on March 28, the card issuer presents the $100 check for payment a second time. On April 1, the check is again returned for insufficient funds. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee based on the return of the payment on April 1.
iv. Assume that the billing cycles for an account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month and that the payment due date is the twenty-fifth day of the month. A minimum payment of $15 is due on August 25. The card issuer receives a check for $15 on August 23, which is not returned. The card issuer receives a check for $50 on September 5, which is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds on September 7. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B) does not prohibit the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee in these circumstances. Instead, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on August 25 ($15). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).
3.
i. Assume that the billing cycles for a credit card account with a credit limit of $5,000 begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the
ii. Same facts as above except that, on March 26, the card issuer receives a payment of $20, reducing the balance below the credit limit to $4,995. Nevertheless, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the extensions of credit in excess of the credit limit is the total amount of credit extended by the card issuer in excess of the credit limit during the March billing cycle ($15). Thus, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose an over-the-limit fee of $15.
4.
5.
6.
i. Imposing a one-time fee to consumers who close their accounts.
ii. Imposing a periodic fee (such as an annual fee, a monthly maintenance fee, or a closed account fee) after an account is closed or terminated if that fee was not imposed prior to closure or termination. This prohibition applies even if the fee was disclosed prior to closure or termination.
iii. Increasing a periodic fee (such as an annual fee or a monthly maintenance fee) after an account is closed or terminated. However, a card issuer is not prohibited from continuing to impose a periodic fee that was imposed before the account was closed or terminated.
7.
1.
ii. Except as provided in § 1026.61(a)(4), a prepaid card would trigger coverage as a hybrid prepaid-credit card if it is a single device that can be used from time to time to access credit that can be extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. (However, unless the credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account meets the requirements of § 1026.61(a)(4), such a product structure would violate the rules under § 1026.61(b).) A credit extension through a negative balance on the asset feature of a prepaid account can occur during the authorization phase of the transaction as discussed in comment 61(a)(3)(i)-1.iii or in later periods up to the settlement of the transaction, as discussed in comment 61(a)(3)(i)-1.iv.
iii. The following example illustrates transactions where a credit extension occurs during the course of authorizing a transaction.
A. A transaction initiated using a prepaid card when there are insufficient
iv. The following examples illustrate transactions where a credit extension occurs at settlement.
A. Transactions that occur when there are sufficient or available funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account at the time of authorization to cover the amount of the transaction but where the consumer does not have sufficient or available funds in the asset feature to cover the transaction at the time of settlement. Credit is extended through a negative balance on the asset feature at settlement to pay those transactions.
B. Transactions that settle even though they were not authorized in advance where credit is extended through a negative balance on the asset feature at settlement to pay those transactions.
1.
1.
A. The card cannot access credit from a covered separate credit feature under § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) that is offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate, though it is permissible for it to access credit from a covered separate credit feature offered by a business partner or from a non-covered separate credit feature as described under § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii); and
B. The card can only access credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account in accordance with both the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B).
ii. If the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) are met and the prepaid card can access credit from a covered separate credit feature as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) that is offered by a business partner, the prepaid card is a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to the covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) but is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended by a prepaid account issuer through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account that meets the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) or with respect to any non-covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii). If the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) are met and the prepaid card cannot access credit from any covered separate credit feature as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i), the prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended by a prepaid account issuer through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account that meets the conditions of § 1026.61(a)(4) or with respect to any non-covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii).
iii. Below is an example of when a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account because the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4) have been met.
A. The prepaid card can only access credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account in accordance with both the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B). The card can access credit from a non-covered separate credit feature as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(ii) and from a covered separate credit feature as defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) offered by a business partner, but cannot access credit for a covered separate credit feature that is offered by a prepaid account issuer or its affiliate.
iv. Below is an example of when a prepaid card is a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account because the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4) have not been met.
A. When there are insufficient or unavailable funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account at the time a transaction is initiated, the card can be used to draw, transfer, or authorize the draw or transfer of credit from a covered separate credit feature offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate during the authorization phase to complete the transaction so that credit is not extended on the asset feature of the prepaid account. The exception in § 1026.61(a)(4) does not apply because the prepaid card can be used to draw, transfer, or authorize the draw or transfer of credit from a covered separate credit feature defined in § 1026.61(a)(2)(i) that is offered by the prepaid account issuer or its affiliate. The card is a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(3) and with respect to the covered separate credit feature pursuant to § 1026.61(a)(2)(i). In that case, a card issuer has violated § 1026.61(b) because it has structured the credit feature as a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account.
v. In the case where a prepaid card is not a hybrid prepaid-credit card with respect to credit extended through a negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account because the conditions set forth in § 1026.61(a)(4) are met:
A. The prepaid account issuer is not a card issuer under § 1026.2(a)(7) with respect to the prepaid card when it accesses credit extended through the negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. The prepaid account issuer also is not a creditor under § 1026.2(a)(17)(iii) or (iv) because it is not a card issuer under § 1026.2(a)(7) with respect to the prepaid card when it accesses credit extended through the negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account. The prepaid account issuer also is not a creditor under § 1026.2(a)(17)(i) with respect to credit extended through the negative balance on the asset feature of the prepaid account as a result of imposing fees on the prepaid account because those fees are not finance charges with respect to that credit.
1.
2.
3.
ii.
4.
1.
1.
i. The types of fees or charges prohibited by § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B)(
A. A daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodic fee assessed each period a prepaid account has a negative balance or is in “overdraft” status; and
B. A daily, weekly, monthly or other periodic fee to hold the prepaid account where the amount of the fee that applies each period is higher if the consumer is enrolled in a purchase cushion as described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(A)(
ii. Fees or charges described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B) do not include:
A. A daily, weekly, monthly, or other periodic fee to hold the prepaid account where the amount of the fee is not higher based on whether the consumer is enrolled in a purchase cushion as described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(A)(
1.
i. These types of fees or charges include:
A. A fee imposed because the balance on the prepaid account becomes negative;
B. Interest charges attributable to a periodic rate that applies to the negative balance;
C. Any fees for delinquency, default, or a similar occurrences that result from the prepaid account having a negative balance or being in “overdraft” status, except that the actual costs to collect the credit may be imposed if otherwise permitted by law; and
D. Late payment fees.
ii. Fees or charges described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B) do not include:
A. Fees for actual collection costs, including attorney's fees, to collect any
1.
A. Transaction fees where the amount of the fee is higher based on whether the transaction accesses only asset funds in the asset feature or accesses credit. For example, a $15 transaction charge is imposed on the asset feature each time a transaction is authorized or paid when there are insufficient or unavailable funds in the asset feature at the time of the authorization or settlement. A $1.50 fee is imposed each time a transaction only accesses funds in the asset feature. The $15 charge is a charge described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B)(
B. A fee for a service on the prepaid account where the amount of the fee is higher based on whether the service is requested when the asset feature has a negative balance. For example, if a prepaid account issuer charges a higher fee for an ATM balance inquiry requested on the prepaid account if the balance inquiry is requested when there is a negative balance on the asset feature than the amount of fee imposed when there is a positive balance on the asset feature, the balance inquiry fee is a fee described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B)(
ii. Fees or charges described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B) do not include:
A. Transaction fees on the prepaid account where the amount of the fee imposed when the transaction accesses credit does not exceed the amount of the fee imposed when the transaction only accesses asset funds in the prepaid account. For example, assume a $1.50 transaction charge is imposed on the prepaid account for each paid transaction that is made with the prepaid card, including transactions that only access asset funds, transactions that take the account balance negative, and transactions that occur when the account balance is already negative. The $1.50 transaction charge imposed on the prepaid account is not a fee described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B); and
B. A fee for a service on the prepaid account where the amount of the fee is not higher based on whether the service is requested when the asset feature has a negative balance. For example, if a prepaid account issuer charges the same amount of fee for an ATM balance inquiry regardless of whether there is a positive or negative balance on the asset feature, the balance inquiry fee is not a fee described in § 1026.61(a)(4)(ii)(B).
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
i. Interest paid on funds deposited into the prepaid account, if any;
ii. Fees or charges imposed on the prepaid account (see comment 61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
iii. The type of access device provided to the consumer;
iv. Minimum balance requirements on the prepaid account; or
v. Account features offered in connection with the prepaid account, such as online bill payment services.
2.
3.
1.
i. The terms and conditions required to be disclosed under § 1026.6(b), which include pricing terms, such as periodic rates, annual percentage rates, and fees and charges imposed on the credit card account; any security interests acquired under the credit account; claims and defenses rights under § 1026.12(c); and error resolution rights under § 1026.13;
ii. Any repayment terms and conditions, including the length of the billing cycle, the payment due date, any grace period on the transactions on the account, the minimum payment formula, and the required or permitted methods for making conforming payments on the credit feature; and
iii. The limits on liability for unauthorized credit transactions.
2.
i. The card issuer structures the credit card account as a “charge card account” (where no periodic rate is used to compute a finance charge on the credit card account) if the credit feature is linked to the prepaid card as described in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
ii. The card issuer imposes a $50 annual fee on a consumer's credit card account if the credit feature is linked to the prepaid card as described in § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
3.
i. The following examples are circumstances in which a card issuer would not meet the condition of § 1026.61(a)(5)(iii)(D)(
A. The card issuer considers transactions using the traditional credit card to obtain goods or services from an unaffiliated merchant of the card issuer as purchase transactions with certain annual percentage rates (APRs), fees, and a grace period that applies to those purchase transactions, but treats credit extensions as cash advances that are subject to different APRs, fees, grace periods, and other specified terms and conditions where the prepaid card is used to draw, transfer, or authorize the draw or transfer of credit from the linked credit card account in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing transactions conducted with the prepaid card to obtain goods or services from an unaffiliated merchant of the card issuer.
B. The card issuer generally treats one-time transfers of credit using the credit card account number to asset accounts as cash advance transactions with certain APRs and fees, but treats one-time transfers of credit using the prepaid card to the prepaid account as purchase transactions that are subject to different APRs and fees.
ii. To apply the same rights under § 1026.12(c) regarding claims and defenses applicable to use of a credit card to purchase property or services, the card issuer must treat an extension of credit as a credit card transaction to purchase property or services where a prepaid card is used to draw, transfer, or authorize the draw or transfer of credit from the linked credit card account in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing transactions conducted with the prepaid card to purchase property or services and provide the same rights under § 1026.12(c) as it applies to property or services purchased with the traditional credit card. This includes situations where a consumer uses a prepaid card to make a purchase to obtain property or services from a merchant and credit is transferred from the linked credit card account in the course of authorizing, settling, or otherwise completing the prepaid transaction to make the purchase. For a transaction where a prepaid card is used to obtain property or services from a merchant and the transaction is partially paid with funds from the asset feature of the prepaid account, and partially paid with credit from the linked credit card account, the amount of the purchase transaction that is funded by credit would be subject to this guidance. A card issuer is not required to provide the rights under § 1026.12(c) with respect to the amount of the transaction funded from the prepaid account.
iii. To apply the same limits on liability for unauthorized extensions of credit from the credit card account using the prepaid card as it applies to unauthorized extensions of credit from the credit card account using the traditional credit card, the card issuer must treat an extension of credit accessed by the prepaid card as a credit card transaction for purposes of the limits on liability for unauthorized extensions of credit set forth in § 1026.12(b) and impose the same liability under § 1026.12(b) to this credit extension as it applies to unauthorized transactions using the traditional credit card.
1.
2.
i. If at the time a prepaid card transaction is initiated there are insufficient or unavailable funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account to complete the transaction, credit must be drawn, transferred or authorized to be drawn or transferred, from the covered separate credit feature at the time the transaction is authorized. The card issuer may not allow the asset feature on the prepaid account to become negative and draw or transfer the credit from the covered separate credit feature at a later time, such as at the end of the day. The card issuer must comply with the applicable provisions of this regulation with respect to the credit extension from the time the prepaid card transaction is authorized.
ii. For transactions where there are insufficient or unavailable funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account to cover that transaction at the time it settles and the prepaid transaction either was not authorized in advance or the transaction was authorized and there were sufficient or available funds in the prepaid account at the time of authorization to cover the transaction, credit must be drawn from the covered separate credit feature to settle these transactions. The card issuer may not allow the asset feature on the prepaid account to become negative. The card issuer must comply with the applicable provisions of this regulation from the time the transaction is settled.
iii. If a negative balance would result on the asset feature in circumstances other than those described in comment 61(b)-2.i and ii, credit must be drawn from the covered separate credit feature to avoid the negative balance. The card issuer may not allow the asset feature on the prepaid account to become negative. The card issuer must comply with the applicable provisions in this regulation from the time credit is drawn from the covered separate credit feature. For example, assume that a fee for an ATM balance inquiry is imposed on the prepaid account when there are insufficient or unavailable funds to cover the amount of the fee when it is imposed. Credit must be drawn from the covered separate credit feature to avoid a negative balance.
| 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 |