| Page Range | 7949-8163 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 8161 - Modifying and Continuing the National Emergency With Respect to Cuba and Continuing To Authorize the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels | |
| 83 FR 8159 - Death of Billy Graham | |
| 83 FR 7949 - Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ``Bump Fire'' Stocks and Other Similar Devices | |
| 83 FR 8146 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Dead Sea Scrolls: The Exhibition” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 8117 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 8118 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 8106 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 8090 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections | |
| 83 FR 8086 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Public Comment Request; State Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report Known as the National Ombudsman Reporting System (NORS) and Instructions (OMB No: 0985-0005) | |
| 83 FR 8091 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
| 83 FR 8069 - Procurement List; Addition and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 8070 - Procurement List; Proposed Deletions | |
| 83 FR 8147 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Safety Assurance System External Portal | |
| 83 FR 8108 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of Strategies Used in TechHire and Strengthening Working Families Initiative (SWFI) Grant Programs | |
| 83 FR 8110 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Implementation Study | |
| 83 FR 8006 - Quizalofop ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 83 FR 8003 - Distillates (Petroleum), Solvent-Dewaxed Heavy Paraffinic; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 83 FR 8095 - National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 8073 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 8101 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
| 83 FR 8104 - Notice of Inventory Completion: San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo, CA | |
| 83 FR 8103 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City, UT | |
| 83 FR 8102 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City, UT | |
| 83 FR 8013 - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements and Services for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | |
| 83 FR 8053 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation | |
| 83 FR 8084 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 83 FR 8096 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 8052 - Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 8052 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
| 83 FR 8047 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 83 FR 8085 - Submission for OMB Review; Reporting and Use of Information Concerning Integrity and Performance of Recipients of Grants and Cooperative Agreements | |
| 83 FR 8086 - Patient Safety Organizations: Expired Listing for Quality Solutions | |
| 83 FR 8096 - California; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 8097 - American Samoa; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 8098 - California; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 8097 - New Hampshire; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 8131 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8011 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 83 FR 8016 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards Program Design | |
| 83 FR 8149 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8116 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8116 - Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8074 - Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Announce Post Incentive Auction Special Displacement Window April 10, 2018 Through May 15, 2018 and Make Location and Channel Data Available | |
| 83 FR 8147 - Seventy Second RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8073 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) | |
| 83 FR 8094 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the GLOBAL PROVIDER | |
| 83 FR 8098 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 8153 - Tiered Pharmacy Copayments for Medications Update | |
| 83 FR 8107 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. | |
| 83 FR 8107 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New | |
| 83 FR 8045 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Kansas Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 8045 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 8071 - Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation | |
| 83 FR 8070 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 8072 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Okeechobee Lateral Pipeline Project Florida Southeast Connection, LLC | |
| 83 FR 8111 - Proposed Modification to the List of Appropriate NRTL Program Test Standards and the Scopes of Recognition of Several NRTLs | |
| 83 FR 8113 - Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC: Application for Recognition | |
| 83 FR 8051 - Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee; Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 8047 - Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee; Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 8068 - Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee; Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 8046 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 8094 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 8093 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8093 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 8088 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZYDELIG-New Drug Application 206545 | |
| 83 FR 8089 - Sebela Ireland, Ltd. et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 24 Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 83 FR 8134 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Short Term Options Series Program To Allow Monday Expirations for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust Options on the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
| 83 FR 8125 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 100 | |
| 83 FR 8132 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Listing Standard for Warrants in Section 105 of the NYSE American Company Guide | |
| 83 FR 8128 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Short Term Options Series Program To Allow Monday Expirations for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust Options on the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
| 83 FR 8142 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Expand the Short Term Options Series Program To Allow Monday Expirations for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust Options | |
| 83 FR 8122 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 100 | |
| 83 FR 8140 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 902.11 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual Concerning Fees Applicable to Acquisition Companies for Shares Issued in Connection With the Consummation of a Business Combination | |
| 83 FR 8118 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the Reinhart Intermediate Bond NextShares Fund Under Nasdaq Rule 5745 | |
| 83 FR 8138 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a New F&O Concentration Charge Policy | |
| 83 FR 8146 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 83 FR 8146 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 83 FR 8037 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Proposed Rule To Revise Atlantic Shark Fishery Closure Regulations | |
| 83 FR 7951 - Annual Stress Test-Technical and Conforming Changes | |
| 83 FR 8117 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 8084 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 8069 - Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 8148 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 8147 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 8105 - Certain UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 8021 - Air Plan Approval; OR: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standards | |
| 83 FR 7998 - Indaziflam; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions | |
| 83 FR 8019 - Withdrawal of Pleadings | |
| 83 FR 7954 - Requirements for Insurance; National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund Equity Distributions | |
| 83 FR 8017 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 7979 - Definitions | |
| 83 FR 8155 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance | |
| 83 FR 8028 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program; Community Development Quota Program; Modifications to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements | |
| 83 FR 7972 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 7968 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 7964 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 7975 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 8058 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews |
Food and Nutrition Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Aging Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Final rule.
On October 27, 2017, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published a proposed rule that would have made several revisions to its stress testing regulation. The OCC is now adopting the proposed rule as final. The final rule changes the range of possible “as-of” dates used in the global market shock component to conform to changes already made by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) to its stress testing regulations. The final rule also changes the transition process for covered institutions with $50 billion or more in assets. Under the final rule, a covered institution that becomes an over $50 billion covered institution, as that term is defined in the OCC stress testing regulation, before September 30 will become subject to the requirements applicable to an over $50 billion covered institution beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the covered institution becomes an over $50 billion covered institution, and a covered institution that becomes an over $50 billion covered institution after September 30 will become subject to the requirements applicable to an over $50 billion covered institution beginning on January 1 of the third calendar year after the covered institution becomes an over $50 billion covered institution. The final rule also makes certain technical changes to clarify the requirements of the OCC's stress testing regulation.
The rule is effective March 26, 2018.
Hein Bogaard, Lead Economic Expert, International Analysis and Banking Condition, (202) 649-5450; Andrew Tschirhart, Financial Analyst, Large Bank Supervision, (202) 649-6210; Kari Falkenborg, Senior Financial Analyst, Midsize and Community Bank Supervision, (312) 917-5000; Henry Barkhausen, Counsel, or Ron Shimabukuro, Senior Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490; for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597.
Section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the OCC and other federal primary financial regulatory agencies issue consistent and comparable regulations to implement the statutory stress testing requirement. In order to fulfill this requirement and minimize regulatory burden, the OCC has worked to ensure that its stress testing regulation remains consistent and comparable to the regulations enacted by other regulatory agencies, including the Board.
Under 12 CFR 46.5(c) the OCC may require a covered institution with significant trading activities to include trading and counterparty components in its adverse and severely adverse scenarios. The trading and counterparty position data to be used in this component is as of a date between January 1 and March 1 of a calendar year. On February 3, 2017, the Board issued a final rule that extended this range to run from October 1 of the calendar year preceding the year of the stress test to March 1 of the calendar year of the stress test.
The proposed rule would have changed the term “over $50 billion covered institution” to “$50 billion or over covered institution.” The change would not have altered the scope of this defined term and would not change the substantive requirements of the regulation. The OCC did not receive any comments on this change and is adopting the change as proposed. The new defined term will be a more precise description of the entities included within this category, which includes all national banks and federal savings associations “with average total consolidated assets . . . that are not less than $50 billion.”
The proposed rule would also have changed the transition process for covered institutions that become an “over $50 billion covered institution.” On February 3, 2017, the Board issued a final rule that would provide additional time for bank holding companies that cross the $50 billion
The stress testing timeline and transition process for national banks or federal savings associations which become $10 to $50 billion covered institutions remain unchanged. A national bank or federal savings association that becomes a $10 to $50 billion covered institution on or before March 31 of a given year would be required to conduct its first stress test in the next calendar year. For example, a national bank or federal savings association that becomes a $10 to $50 billion covered institution as of March 31, 2017, would be required to conduct its first stress test in the stress testing cycle beginning January 1, 2018. A national bank or federal savings association that becomes a $10 to $50 billion covered institution after March 31 of a given year would be required to conduct its first stress test in the second calendar year after the date the national bank or federal savings association becomes a covered institution. For example, a national bank or federal savings association that becomes a $10 to $50 billion covered institution on June 30, 2017 would be required to conduct its first stress test in the stress testing cycle beginning January 1, 2019.
In 2014 the OCC, in coordination with the Board and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, shifted the dates of the annual stress testing cycle by approximately three months.
The OCC received three comments on the proposed rule from individuals. Two of the comments did not address the contents of the proposed rule or stress testing. One comment mentioned stress testing but was very brief and did not make any specific recommendations. Accordingly, the OCC is adopting the final rule as proposed.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This final rule amends 12 CFR part 46, which has an approved information collection under the PRA (OMB Control No. 1557-0319). The amendments do not introduce any new collections of information, nor do they amend 12 CFR part 46 in a way that modifies the collection of information that OMB has approved. Therefore, this final rule does not require a PRA submission to OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
As discussed in the
The OCC has analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the final rule includes a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). The OCC has determined that this final rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to section 202 of the UMRA.
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA) requires that each federal banking agency, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The OCC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner. The OCC did not receive any comments on its use of plain language.
Banking, Banks, Capital, Disclosures, National banks, Recordkeeping, Risk, Savings associations, Stress test.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the OCC amends 12 CFR part 46 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 93a; 1463(a)(2); 5365(i)(2); and 5412(b)(2)(B).
The addition reads as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(c)
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a national bank or Federal savings association that becomes a $50 billion or over covered institution, whether by migrating from being a $10 to $50 billion covered institution or by directly becoming a $50 billion or over covered institution, after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements applicable to a $50 billion or over covered institution beginning on January 1 of the third calendar year after the national bank or Federal savings association becomes a $50 billion or over covered institution, unless that time is extended by the OCC in writing. A national bank or Federal savings association that becomes a $50 billion or over covered institution on or before September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements applicable to a $50 billion or over covered institution beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the national bank or Federal savings association becomes a $50 billion or over covered institution, unless that time is extended by the OCC in writing.
Each covered institution must conduct the annual stress test under this part subject to the following requirements:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(i) Unless the OCC determines otherwise, if the $50 billion or over covered institution is a consolidated subsidiary of a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company subject to supervisory stress tests conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System pursuant to 12 CFR part 252, then within the June 15 to July 15 period such covered institution may not publish the required summary of its annual stress test earlier than the date that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System publishes the supervisory stress test results of the covered bank's parent holding company.
(ii) If the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System publishes the supervisory stress test results of the covered institution's parent holding company prior to June 15, then such covered institution may publish its stress test results prior to June 15, but no later than July 15, through actual publication by the covered institution or through publication by the parent holding company pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(2)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) is adopting amendments to its share insurance requirements rule to provide stakeholders with greater transparency regarding the calculation of each eligible financial institution's pro rata share of a declared equity distribution from the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). The Board is also adopting a temporary provision to govern all NCUSIF equity distributions related to the Corporate System Resolution Program (CSRP), a special purpose program established by the Board to stabilize the corporate credit union system following the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Furthermore, the Board is making technical and conforming amendments to other aspects of the share insurance requirements rule to account for these changes.
This rule is effective March 26, 2018, except for the addition of § 741.13, which is effective from March 26, 2018, until December 31, 2022.
Benjamin M. Litchfield, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at (703) 518-6540; or Steve Farrar, Supervisory Financial Analyst, Office of Examination and Insurance, at (703) 518-6360. You may also contact them at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
The NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for federal credit unions (FCUs) and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs).
The Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) requires each FICU to pay and maintain a capitalization deposit with the NCUSIF equal to one percent of the FICU's insured shares to capitalize the NCUSIF.
The FCU Act also requires each FICU to pay a federal share insurance premium equal to a percentage of the FICU's insured shares to ensure that the NCUSIF has sufficient reserves to pay potential share insurance claims by credit union members and to provide assistance in connection with the
Furthermore, the FCU Act requires the Board to make a pro rata distribution of NCUSIF equity to FICUs “after each calendar year if, as of the end of the calendar year,” there are no outstanding loans or interest owed to the U.S. Treasury and the NCUSIF meets certain financial performance benchmarks.
Section 741.4 of the NCUA's share insurance requirements rule implements these requirements.
On July 20, 2017, the Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting public comment on proposed amendments to § 741.4 to provide stakeholders with greater transparency regarding the calculation of an eligible financial institution's pro rata share of a declared equity distribution.
The proposed rule amended § 741.4 in several respects. First, the proposed rule amended § 741.4(e) to adopt a calculation methodology for determining each FICU's pro rata share of a declared equity distribution based on either an eligible financial institution's quarterly average amount of insured shares or its year-end insured shares balance as then reported in the financial institution's year-end Call Report. Second, the proposed rule amended § 741.4(j)(1)(ii) to eliminate the ability of a FICU terminating federal share insurance coverage during the calendar year from receiving an equity distribution for that calendar year.
To accommodate these changes, the proposed rule also made technical and conforming amendments to the definitions in § 741.4(b) and the provisions governing conversion to federal share insurance in § 741.4(i). Appendix A to part 741, which provides examples of partial year federal share insurance premium assessments and equity distributions under § 741.4, was removed in favor of developing a more user-friendly and readily updated set of examples to be posted on the NCUA's public website.
The proposed rule also sought to add a temporary provision, § 741.13, to govern equity distributions related to the CSRP. Because the CSRP involved a series of corporate assessments to capitalize the TCCUSF, the temporary provision required any equity distribution related to the CSRP to take the form of a rebate of past corporate assessments paid on either a First-In, First-Out (FIFO) or Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) basis to repay those eligible financial institutions that were required to pay a corporate assessment.
Finally, the proposed rule requested comment on ways to improve the NCUA's current process for assessing and collecting federal share insurance premiums to provide stakeholders with greater transparency. While not part of this rulemaking, the Board noted its intention to address the assessment and collection of federal share insurance premiums in a separate rulemaking based in part on stakeholder comments. One possible improvement that the Board was considering was calculating federal share insurance premiums similarly to equity distributions.
The Board received 50 comments from various stakeholders including FICUs, national credit union trade associations, state credit union trade associations, a professional trade association for state credit union supervisors, and a natural person. Commenters overwhelmingly supported the Board's initiative to provide FICUs with greater transparency and offered general support for the proposed rule.
Commenters almost uniformly supported the Board's
Commenters were more evenly divided on the Board's proposed changes to § 741.4(j)(1)(ii), which prohibited the payment of an equity distribution to a FICU that terminates federal share insurance coverage during the calendar year for which an equity distribution is declared. However, neither commenters in favor of the proposed changes nor commenters opposed to the proposed changes offered substantive arguments in support of their respective positions. Commenters in favor of the proposed changes echoed the Board's reasoning from the proposed rule and commenters opposed to the proposed changes generalized about fairness to FICUs that terminate federal share insurance coverage.
Commenters were likewise divided on whether an equity distribution related to the CSRP should take the form of a rebate of past corporate assessments paid on a LIFO or FIFO basis or using the
For the reasons set out in more detail below, the Board is adopting the
The Board has historically used a number of different calculation methodologies to determine an eligible financial institution's pro rata share of a declared equity distribution made in the normal course of business not related to the CSRP.
Under the
Under the
Of the two approaches, the Board noted that it favors the
However, in the proposed rule, the Board also recognized the benefits of the
Commenters overwhelmingly favored the
On balance, the Board believes that accounting for seasonal fluctuations in insured share growth is a significant benefit to eligible financial institutions that outweighs the administrative convenience offered by the
The
The Board is also adopting a provision in the final rule to explicitly address mergers between FICUs. In the preamble and regulatory text set out in the proposed rule, the Board addressed mergers between FICUs at some length. To avoid any confusion, the final rule clarifies that a FICU that merges with another FICU that has filed at least one Call Report for a reporting period in the calendar year for which the Board declares an equity distribution shall receive an amount equivalent to what the continuing FICU and the merging FICU would have received but for the consummation of the merger. For purposes of calculating the continuing FICU's average amount of insured shares, any insured shares previously reported during that calendar year by the merging FICU on its quarterly Call Reports filed prior to the consummation of the merger shall be combined with the insured shares reported on the continuing FICU's quarterly Call Reports for purposes of calculating the continuing FICU's equity distribution.
Furthermore, the Board is adopting a provision in the final rule to explicitly address purchase and assumption transactions. In response to the proposed rule, several commenters asked about how the
In all other respects, the Board is adopting the
For 25 years, the Board did not allow a FICU that terminated federal share insurance coverage to receive an equity distribution as a matter of right. Rather, § 741.4 permitted a FICU to leave a “nominal sum” on deposit with the NCUISIF until the next equity distribution to be eligible to receive “a prorated share of the distribution.”
Proposed § 741.4(j)(1)(ii) sought to eliminate the ability of a FICU that terminated federal share insurance coverage before the declaration date of an equity distribution to receive any portion of that distribution. The Board reasoned that this approach would be more consistent with general corporate practice regarding the payment of shareholder dividends. Furthermore, the Board believed that this approach would be more equitable to FICUs that remain federally insured throughout the calendar year because they bear the risk of a federal share insurance premium
Commenters were evenly split on whether the Board should adopt the proposed change to § 741.4(j)(1)(ii) or retain the current rule. Having considered the arguments advanced by the commenters, the Board believes that it is not appropriate to finalize this proposed change at this time. Instead, the Board believes that it would be beneficial to study this issue further, and it may revisit amendments to § 741.4(j)(1)(ii) in a future rulemaking. However, the Board is finalizing technical changes to § 741.4(j)(1)(ii) to make this provision more consistent with the
Additionally, new § 741.4(e)(4)(i)(C) will calculate the prorated distribution of a FICU that terminated federal share insurance coverage by applying the general
The Board proposed to adopt a temporary provision governing any equity distributions resulting from the CSRP. Under this temporary provision, any equity distribution related to the CSRP was to take the form of a series of equity distributions repaying any corporate assessments against FICUs on either a FIFO or a LIFO basis. The Board also solicited public comment on whether it should instead use either the
Under the proposed FIFO approach, the Board would have made an equity distribution to each FICU up to the total dollar amount of corporate assessments paid by that FICU during the relevant assessment period beginning with the first assessment period in 2009.
Under the proposed LIFO approach, the Board would have made an equity distribution to each FICU up to the total dollar amount of premiums paid by that FICU during the relevant assessment period beginning with the last assessment period in 2013. Of the two approaches, the Board favored the LIFO method because it ensured that FICUs received equity distributions for their most recent corporate assessments first, which generally were larger assessments, with smaller assessments that took place at the start of the CSRP being repaid over time as the NCUA-guaranteed securities issued as part of the CSRP matured.
Under either the proposed FIFO or LIFO approach, any payments owed to a FICU that had merged into another FICU would have been paid to the continuing FICU. Moreover, any payments owed to a liquidated FICU with an open liquidation estate or a closed liquidation estate still within its applicable look-back period would have been made to the liquidation estate and distributed ratably to the FICU's creditors in accordance with part 709 of the NCUA's rules.
Furthermore, because any equity distribution related to the CSRP would go first towards repaying FICUs that paid corporate assessments, a FICU that had not paid a corporate assessment would not have been entitled to receive an equity distribution related to the CSRP unless all such corporate assessments are first repaid in full. Additionally, a FICU that terminated federal share insurance coverage before the payment date for an equity distribution related to the CSRP would not have been entitled to a distribution for the reasons stated above in the discussion of proposed changes to § 741.4(j)(1)(ii).
Of the commenters that indicated a preference for either the proposed FIFO or LIFO approach, an overwhelming majority favored the LIFO approach. Other commenters indicated a preference for an
While FIFO and LIFO would have been a way to closely link what a FICU paid in corporate assessments to what it received in equity distributions related to the CSRP, the Board acknowledges that over the past 9 years, several hundred FICUs have terminated federal share insurance at various times; there have been many FICU mergers and liquidations; and the NCUA has approved several new charters. Each of these transactions makes the calculation of each eligible financial institution's pro rata share of an equity distribution more complex. Additionally, the Board has acknowledged that FIFO and LIFO may not be completely compatible with the FCU Act requirement to make a distribution on a “pro rata” basis.
Instead, the Board believes that adopting a modified version of the
Accordingly, the Board is adopting a modified version of the
Consistent with the
In addition to the proposed changes to the share insurance requirements rule governing the calculation of an eligible financial institution's pro rata share of an equity distribution and the treatment of a FICU that terminated federal share insurance coverage, the Board proposed to make technical and conforming amendments to other aspects of § 741.4 and to Appendix A of Part 741. Commenters did not address these technical and conforming amendments. Accordingly, the Board is adopting these amendments largely as proposed with one exception. The Board is making a technical change to the aspect of the share insurance requirements rule governing newly chartered FICUs that was not previously proposed. This change will relocate regulatory text governing equity distributions to newly chartered FICUs from § 741.4(g) to § 741.4(e). Because the change is technical in nature, and does not change the substance of the rule, the Board believes that public comment on the change to this aspect of the share insurance requirements rule is unnecessary and therefore has good cause to waive the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
To provide stakeholders with greater transparency, the Board is amending § 741.4(b) to include definitions of “aggregate amount of insured shares”, “aggregate average amount of insured shares”, “average amount of insured shares”, “federally insured credit union”, “financial institution”, “insured depository institution”, and “NCUSIF equity distribution” in the final rule. Furthermore, the Board is revising definitions of “available assets ratio”, “equity ratio”, “insured shares”, and “reporting period”.
For greater readability and to improve ease of use throughout § 741.4, the Board is removing the language from § 741.4(g) addressing equity distributions for newly chartered FICUs and codifying it as new § 741.4(e)(4)(i)(A). The Board is also making technical amendments to this provision to provide for greater consistency with the
The Board is also making conforming amendments to § 741.4(i)(1)(v) and (i)(2)(iii) to reflect the adoption of the
Section 741.4(i)(2)(iii) addresses an equity distribution to a FICU that merges with a financial institution that is not federally insured by the NCUA where the FICU is the surviving entity.
The Board also proposed to remove Appendix A to part 741 from the NCUA's regulations and replace it with examples and frequently asked questions to be published on NCUA's public website.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $100 million in assets).
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The NCUA does not believe this final rule is a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of SBREFA. As required by SBREFA, the NCUA has filed the appropriate reports so that this final rule may be reviewed.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new information collection requirement or amends an existing information collection requirement.
The NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests.
Bank deposit insurance, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, the Board amends 12 CFR part 741 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766(a), 1781-1790, and 1790d; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(i) The amount determined by subtracting—
(A) Direct liabilities of the NCUSIF and contingent liabilities for which no provision for losses has been made from
(B) The sum of cash and the market value of unencumbered investments authorized under § 203 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1783), to
(ii) The aggregate amount of insured shares in all federally insured credit unions.
(i) The amount determined by subtracting—
(A) Direct liabilities of the NCUSIF and contingent liabilities for which no provision for losses has been made from
(B) The sum of all one percent deposits made by federally insured credit unions pursuant to § 741.4 of this chapter and the retained earnings balance of the NCUSIF, to
(ii) The aggregate amount of insured shares in all federally insured credit unions.
(e)
(1)
(2)
(i) Any loans to the NCUSIF from the Federal Government, and any interest on those loans, have been repaid;
(ii) The NCUSIF's equity ratio exceeds the normal operating level; and
(iii) The NCUSIF's available assets ratio exceeds one percent.
(3)
(i) Reduce the NCUSIF's equity ratio below the normal operating level; and
(ii) Reduce the NCUSIF's available assets ratio below one percent.
(4)
(5)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(g)
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If the NCUSIF assesses a premium in the calendar year of conversion or merger on or before the day in which the conversion or merger is completed, pay a prorated premium based on the financial institution's insured shares as of the last day of the most recently ended reporting period preceding the conversion or merger multiplied by the ratio of the amount of full calendar months for which the financial institution maintained federal share insurance coverage from the NCUSIF to the number of full calendar months for the entire calendar year. If the financial institution has previously paid a premium based on this same assessment that exceeds this amount, the financial institution will receive a refund of the difference following the completion of the conversion or merger.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) The amount determined by subtracting—
(A) Direct liabilities of the NCUSIF and contingent liabilities for which no provision for losses has been made from
(B) The sum of cash and the market value of unencumbered investments authorized under section 203 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1783), to
(ii) The aggregate amount of insured shares in all federally insured credit unions.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(i) The amount determined by subtracting—
(A) Direct liabilities of the NCUSIF and contingent liabilities for which no provision for losses has been made from
(B) The sum of all one percent deposits made by federally insured credit unions pursuant to § 741.4 of this chapter and the retained earnings balance of the NCUSIF, to
(ii) The aggregate amount of insured shares in all federally insured credit unions.
(14)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) Any loans to the NCUSIF from the federal government, and any interest on those loans, have been repaid;
(ii) The NCUSIF's equity ratio exceeds the normal operating level; and
(iii) The NCUSIF's available assets ratio exceeds one percent.
(3)
(i) Reduce the NCUSIF's equity ratio below the normal operating level; and
(ii) Reduce the NCUSIF's available assets ratio below one percent.
(4)
(5)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-12-05, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2012-12-05 required repetitive inspections for cracking under the stop fittings and intercostal flanges and for cracking of the intercostal web, attachment clips, stringer splice channels, frame, reinforcement angle, shear web, frame outer chord and inner chord; a one-time inspection to detect missing fasteners; repetitive inspections of the cargo barrier net fitting for cracking; repetitive inspections for cracking of the stringer S-15L aft intercostal; and repair or corrective action if necessary. For certain airplanes, this AD adds new repetitive inspections of certain areas of the frame inner chord, and applicable on-condition actions. This AD was prompted by reports of additional cracking in locations not covered by the inspections in AD 2012-12-05. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of July 23, 2012 (77 FR 36139, June 18, 2012).
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of September 9, 2009 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-12-05, Amendment 39-17084 (77 FR 36139, June 18, 2012) (“AD 2012-12-05”). AD 2012-12-05 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Boeing Company supported the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Southwest Airlines (SWA) asked that a note be added to paragraph (s) of the proposed AD to provide provisions for AMOCs previously approved for AD 2012-12-05. SWA stated that the language in paragraph (s) of the proposed AD does not account for AMOCs previously approved for AD 2012-12-05.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have added paragraphs (s)(5) and (s)(6) to this AD to include approval of AMOCs previously approved for AD 2012-12-05.
We have revised paragraph (r) of this AD to provide credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (i), (j), and (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before September 9, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009)), using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and 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 also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016. The service information describes procedures for, among other actions, repetitive inspections of the fastener holes in the station (STA) 351.2 frame inner chord at stringer S-17L, and applicable on-condition actions. 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 411 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that are required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost estimates for the other on-condition corrective actions specified in 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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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 30, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2012-12-05, Amendment 39-17084 (77 FR 36139, June 18, 2012) (“AD 2012-12-05”).
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the station (STA) 348.2 frame above the two outboard fasteners attaching the frame inner chord and door stop fittings, and in the outboard chord at stringer S-16L; missing fasteners in the STA 348.2 frame inner chord; and additional cracking in locations not covered by the inspections in AD 2012-12-05. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the intercostals on the forward and aft sides of the forward entry door cutout, which could result in loss of the forward entry door and rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. For all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles after November 1, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-20-03, Amendment 39-14296 (70 FR 56361, September 27, 2005) (“AD 2005-20-03”)), whichever occurs later: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. For all Model 737-200C series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles after September 9, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009) (“AD 2009-16-14”)), whichever occurs later, do the inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007: Perform a
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. For Group 2 cargo airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007: Perform a detailed inspection for cracking of the intercostal webs and attachment clips located forward of the forward entry door, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or in accordance with Part 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010. After September 9, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-16-14), and until July 23, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-12-05), Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010; may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. As of July 23, 2012, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. For Group 2 cargo airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007: Perform a detailed inspection for cracking of the intercostal webs and attachment clips located aft of the forward entry door, and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with Part 4 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or in accordance with Part 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010. As of July 23, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-12-05), only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. Repeat the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles after the previous inspection, or within 3,000 flight cycles after September 9, 2009, whichever occurs later.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. Do the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010; except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD. After September 9, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-16-14), and until July 23, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-12-05), Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010; may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. As of July 23, 2012, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.
(1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010; specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; specifies a compliance time relative to the date of a service bulletin, this AD requires compliance relative to September 9, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-16-14). Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; specifies a compliance time relative to the date of the initial release of a service bulletin, this AD requires compliance relative to November 1, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-20-03).
This paragraph restates exceptions to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, specified in paragraph (r) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes.
(1) The access and restoration instructions identified in the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, are not required by this AD. Operators may perform those actions in accordance with approved maintenance procedures.
(2) The use of Boeing Drawing 65-88700 is not allowed when accomplishing the actions required by this AD in accordance with the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (s) of AD 2012-12-05, with no changes. For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles after July 23, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-12-05), whichever occurs later, do initial detailed and HFEC inspections for cracking of the S-15L aft intercostal between body station (BS) 348.2 and BS 360, and do a detailed inspection of the cargo barrier net fitting at the intercostal, in accordance with Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010. If any cracking is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 and Group 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016: Except as required by paragraph (q) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do actions to correct the unsafe condition using a method approved in accordance with
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016, uses the phrase “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “after the effective date of this AD” must be used.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph(s) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (i), (j), and (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before September 9, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009)), using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (p) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (r)(2)(i) and (r)(2)(ii) of this AD are met and except as provided by paragraph (r)(2)(iii) of this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010, was incorporated by reference in AD 2012-12-05.
(i) Note 1 of paragraph 3.A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010, was disregarded when accomplishing the actions.
(ii) Boeing Drawing 65-88700 was not used when accomplishing the actions in accordance with the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010.
(iii) The access and restoration instructions identified in the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010, are not required. Operators are allowed to perform those actions in accordance with approved maintenance procedures.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (t)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (q)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (s)(4)(i) and (s)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(5) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-12-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) through (o) of this AD.
(6) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-12-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016, that are required by paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (u)(6) and (u)(7) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 30, 2018.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 23, 2012 (77 FR 36139, June 18, 2012).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 9, 2009 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007.
(ii) Reserved.
(6) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
(7) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(8) 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 Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that a jammed control cable prevented the full extension of the nose landing gear (LG). This AD requires a general visual inspection of the LG handle teleflex cable conduit connector for the presence of a grease nipple, a maintenance records check of affected airplanes, a detailed inspection for
This AD is effective March 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 30, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3226; fax 206-231-3398.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 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 AD 2017-0068, dated April 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:
A report was received of an alledgedly post-SBF100-32-107 (introducing a teleflex cable conduit with a grease nipple and a stainless steel teleflex cable) Fokker 100 aeroplane landing with a nose landing gear (LG) that was not completely in the extended position, in spite of the application by the crew of the relevant normal and abnormal Airplane Flight Manual LG extension procedures. The investigation revealed that the failure of the nose LG to completely extend had been caused by a jammed teleflex cable of the LG control system, which resulted in a hydraulic lock in the nose LG extension/retraction actuator. The investigation also revealed that the teleflex cable conduit connector on the subject aeroplane did not have the grease nipple installed, so that the aeroplane was actually not in the full post-SBF100-32-107 configuration.
Based on an incorrect assumption with regard to full incorporation of SBF100-32-107 (
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to further landings with the nose LG not in the fully extended position, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services published SBF100-32-167 (hereafter referred to as `the SB' in this [EASA] AD) to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time [general visual] inspection of the LG handle teleflex cable conduit connector for the presence of the grease nipple and, depending on findings, [a maintenance records check and] accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also requires the reporting of findings to Fokker Services, and to ensure that the maintenance [or inspection] programme [as applicable] contains those instructions applicable to the aeroplane configuration.
Required actions also include a detailed inspection for corrosion and damage of the LG handle teleflex cable, replacement of the LG handle teleflex cable if necessary, and lubrication of the LG handle teleflex cable. 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 considered the comment received. The commenter, Peter North, supported the NPRM.
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 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.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-167, dated December 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the nose LG control cable; a maintenance records check; detailed inspection, replacement, and lubrication of the LG handle teleflex cable; and
We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
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 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 30, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 11244 through 11481 inclusive, if maintenance records show that the airplane is in a post-Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-107 configuration.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report that lack of maintenance on a control system cable caused a hydraulic lock and difficult operation of the nose landing gear (LG) handle, preventing full extension of the nose LG when landing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct erratic or hard-to-move LG handles, which could lead to the nose LG not being in the fully extended position during landing and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the flight crew and passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the LG handle teleflex cable conduit connector for the presence of a grease nipple, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-167, dated December 14, 2016.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, a grease nipple is not found installed: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, check the maintenance records of the affected airplane for the previous 3 months for reports of an erratic or hard-to-move LG handle, and check the maintenance records to determine the date of the most recent installation, or inspection/lubrication, as applicable, of the LG handle teleflex cable.
Based on results of the maintenance records check required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within the applicable compliance times specified in Table 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for corrosion and damage of the LG handle teleflex cable, replace the LG handle teleflex cable if any corrosion or damage is found, and lubricate the LG handle teleflex cable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-167, dated December 14, 2016.
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-167, dated December 14, 2016, to incorporate the applicable tasks and associated thresholds and intervals, based on the airplane configuration (pre- or post-SBF100-32-107) determined in the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, or within 30 days after doing the inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, whichever occurs later: Report the findings of the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and the records check specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, to Fokker Services B.V., in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-167, dated December 14, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3226; fax 206-231-3398.
(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) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-167, dated December 14, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by several incidents of electrical shorting and sparks caused by de-icing fluid leaks between flight deck windshields and side windows. This AD requires water spray tests and general visual inspections for water in the flight deck compartment, and water removal and sealant application if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 30, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7367; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-28, dated August 23, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several incidents of electrical shorting and sparks have been reported in the cockpit of CL-600-2C10 and CL-600-2D24 aeroplanes. De-icing fluid can leak between the windshields and side windows, leading to possible damage to the cockpit floodlight wires and electrical connections. If not corrected, this condition may result in a flight compartment fire.
This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate a water spray test and [general visual] inspection for evidence of fluid ingress into the flight compartment. It also provides mandatory instructions for sealant application if required.
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.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, Revision A, dated April 13, 2016. This service information describes procedures for doing water spray tests on the flight deck windows, doing general visual inspections for water in the flight deck compartment, removing water, and applying sealant to the flight deck windows. 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 543 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary water removal and sealant application that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this water removal and sealant application:
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 30, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10342 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15367 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19041 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56, Windows.
This AD was prompted by several incidents of electrical shorting and sparks caused by de-icing fluid leaks between flight deck windshields and side windows. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct de-icing fluid entering the flight deck, which could damage the flight deck floodlight wires and electrical connections, and ultimately could lead to a fire in the flight deck compartment.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes on which a left flight deck windshield or a left flight deck side window was replaced as specified in Bombardier Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) task 56-11-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task; or Bombardier AMM task 56-12-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, perform a water spray test and do a general visual inspection of the left flight deck windshield and left flight deck side window for evidence of water ingress into the flight deck, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, Revision A, dated April 13, 2016. If water is found in the flight deck compartment: Before further flight, remove the water, and apply sealant on the left flight deck windows in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, Revision A, dated April 13, 2016.
(1) For airplanes on which Bombardier in-service ModSum IS67033110181 has not been incorporated: Within 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which Bombardier in-service ModSum IS67033110181 has been incorporated: Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
For airplanes on which a right flight deck windshield or a right flight deck side window was replaced as specified in Bombardier AMM task 56-11-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task; or Bombardier AMM task 56-12-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, perform a water spray test and do a general visual inspection of the right flight deck windshield and right flight deck side window for evidence of water ingress into the flight deck, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, Revision A, dated April 13, 2016. If water is found in the flight deck compartment: Before further flight, remove the water, and apply sealant on the right flight deck windows in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, Revision A, dated April 13, 2016.
(1) For airplanes on which Bombardier in-service ModSum IS67033110181 has not been incorporated: Within 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which Bombardier in-service ModSum IS67033110181 has been incorporated: Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD; provided that the left flight deck side window or left flight deck windshield have not been subsequently replaced as specified in Bombardier AMM task 56-11-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task; or Bombardier AMM task 56-12-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task.
(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-56-002, dated January 7, 2008.
(ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-56-002, Revision A, dated February 26, 2008.
(iii) Part A and Part C, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, dated May 28, 2015.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), or (i)(2)(iii) of this AD; provided that the right flight deck side window or right flight deck windshield have not been subsequently replaced as specified in Bombardier AMM task 56-11-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task; or Bombardier AMM task 56-12-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task.
(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-56-002, dated January 7, 2008.
(ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-56-002, Revision A, dated February 26, 2008.
(iii) Part B and Part D, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, dated May 28, 2015.
(1) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a left or right flight deck windshield as specified in Bombardier AMM task 56-11-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a left or right flight deck side window as specified in Bombardier AMM task 56-12-01-400-801, Revision 48, dated March 25, 2015, or any previous revision of that task.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-28, dated August 23, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7367; fax 516-794-5531.
(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) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-56-003, Revision A, dated April 13, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
(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), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective and a structural reevaluation by the manufacturer that identified additional structural elements that qualify as structural significant items (SSIs). This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for certain SSI, performing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structures if necessary. Additionally, this AD requires all cracks involving an SSI or related structure in close vicinity to the SSI to be reported to Boeing. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 30, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comments received. The Boeing Company, British Airways, and United Airlines supported the SNPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747
We also reviewed Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspections of the wings, fuselage, and empennage SSIs for Model 747-400 LCF 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 118 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have not specified cost estimates for the inspection and repair specified in this AD. Compliance with this AD constitutes a method of compliance with the FAA aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2, 2005) for certain baseline structure of Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The AASFR requires certain operators to incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 14 CFR 129.109(b)(1). Accomplishment of the actions specified in this AD will meet the requirements of these regulations for certain baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection and repair portions of this AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR for airplanes affected by that rule. For airplanes not affected by the AASFR, we have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the inspection or repair portions of this AD.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary reporting that would be required based on the results of the inspections in the maintenance inspection program. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:
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 transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 30, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2004-07-22 R1, Amendment 39-15326 (73 FR 1052, January 7, 2008; corrected February 14, 2008 (73 FR 8589)) (“AD 2004-07-22 R1”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.
A Model 747-400 LCF airplane is a Model 747-400 series airplane that has been modified from a passenger airplane to a freighter configuration, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-00-2084.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective, and a structural reevaluation by the manufacturer that identified additional structural elements that qualify as structural significant items (SSIs). We are issuing this AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, an SSI is defined as a principal structural element (PSE). A PSE is a structural element that contributes significantly to the carrying of flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose integrity is essential in maintaining the overall structural integrity of the airplane.
Prior to reaching the compliance times specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(2)(i), (j)(1)(i), or (j)(2)(i) of this AD, as applicable, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Incorporate a revision into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, that provides no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each SSI listed in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. The revision to the maintenance or inspection program must include, and must be implemented in accordance with, the procedures in Section 5.0, “Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) System Application,” and Section 6.0, “SSI Discrepancy Reporting” of Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; as applicable. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2004-07-22 R1.
(1) For all airplanes except Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013.
(2) For Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. For SSIs listed in both Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; and Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013: Incorporate the SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015.
For all airplanes except Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: Perform inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD. Once the initial inspection has been performed, in order to remain in compliance with the maintenance or inspection program, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repetitive inspections are required at the intervals specified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013. Doing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the corresponding inspection required by paragraph (i) of AD 2004-07-22 R1.
(1) For wing structure, except as provided by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: Inspect at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A) or (i)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) For all Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 100,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(B) For all Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 115,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For all structure other than wing structure, except as provided by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: At the time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles.
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For any portion of an SSI that has been replaced with new structure: Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(ii) Within 10,000 flight cycles after the replacement of the part with a new part.
For Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: Perform inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; at the times specified in paragraph
(1) For wing structure: Inspect at the times specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 115,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For all structure other than wing structure: At the time specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) and (j)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles.
(B) Within the applicable initial compliance time specified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. For SSIs are listed in both Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; the SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015, take precedence (
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
If any cracked structure is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, repair before further flight using an FAA-approved method.
For compliance times identified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD that specify total flight cycles and total flight hours, and the SSI is a removable structural component, those compliance times must be measured on the SSI since its first installation on any airplane, regardless of what the airframe as a whole has accumulated. If the total flight cycles and total flight hours on the SSI are not available or cannot be determined, use the airframe total flight cycles and total flight hours for the compliance times identified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless the alternative inspection or inspection interval is approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD and all of the initial inspections required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, as applicable, terminates all requirements of AD 2004-07-22 R1.
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 1 hour 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, Seattle 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 principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (q) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2004-07-22 R1 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD for the SSIs identified in the AMOC, except for any SSI that has an expanded inspection area identified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; or Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015, as applicable.
For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; 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) Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013.
(ii) Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; 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
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Interim final rule; request for comment.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) is amending its primary definitions regulation to make it more user-friendly both to industry and the public. Specifically, the Commission is amending the primary definitions regulation to replace the complex and confusing lettering system with a simple alphabetical list; and replacing all existing cross references to any definition within the primary definitions regulation with a general reference to the revised alphabetical list, rather than to a specific lettered paragraph.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE70, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Matthew B. Kulkin, Director, (202) 418-5213,
Section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”)
Commission regulation § 1.3 similarly sets forth many definitions referenced throughout the Commission's regulations.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to amend § 1.3 to replace the sub-paragraphs currently identified with an alphabetic designation for each defined term with a simple alphabetized list, as is recommended by the Office of the Federal Register.
The Commission invites comments on this interim final rule. For example, the Commission invites comment as to the extent, if any, that the elimination of the paragraph references to particular defined terms in § 1.3 would cause registrants to update or alter existing automated compliance programs and any costs associated with such changes. Comments must be received by the Commission on or before the
The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires that Federal agencies consider whether the rules that they issue will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis respecting the impact.
Section 15(a) of the CEA
The interim final rule does not represent an exercise of Commission discretion that alters substantive rights and obligations imposed by statute and current Commission rules. As discussed earlier, the interim final rule merely reorganizes the existing definitions in § 1.3 into alphabetical order, deletes the outdated lettering scheme, and revises § 1.3 and related regulations to reflect the deleted lettering scheme. As such, substantively, the interim final rule poses no incremental costs or benefits relative to the regulatory requirements that are now in force.
This interim final rule does have a discretionary element. By issuing the interim final rule, the Commission is exercising its discretion to clarify, by amendment, the definitions currently in force. By alphabetizing the definitions, the interim final rule addresses a potential source of uncertainty for market participants, which promotes the public interest in market integrity and regulatory clarity. The Commission recognizes that this discretionary act of clarification may result in some administrative costs to market participants. However, the Commission believes any such costs will not be material.
Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Advertising, Brokers, Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Foreign currencies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Trade practices.
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Cotton, Grains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Swaps.
Consumer protection, Fraud.
Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Business and industry, Swaps.
Cotton, Grains.
Swaps.
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Brokers, Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR chapter I as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6r, 6s, 7, 7a-1, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-3, 8, 9, 10a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24 (2012).
The revisions read as follows:
Words used in the singular form in the rules and regulations in this chapter shall be deemed to import the plural and vice versa, as the context may require. The following terms, as used in the Commodity Exchange Act, or in the rules and regulations in this chapter, shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them, unless the context otherwise requires:
(i) The potential change in the value of assets which a person owns, produces, manufactures, processes, or merchandises or anticipates owning, producing, manufacturing, processing, or merchandising,
(ii) The potential change in the value of liabilities which a person owns or anticipates incurring, or
(iii) The potential change in the value of services which a person provides, purchases, or anticipates providing or purchasing.
(iv) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no transactions or positions shall be classified as bona fide hedging unless their purpose is to offset price risks incidental to commercial cash or spot operations and such positions are established and liquidated in an orderly manner in accordance with sound commercial practices and, for transactions or positions on contract markets subject to trading and position limits in effect pursuant to section 4a of the Act, unless the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this definition have been satisfied.
(2)
(i) Sales of any agreement, contract, or transaction in an excluded commodity on a designated contract market or swap execution facility that is a trading facility which do not exceed in quantity:
(A) Ownership or fixed-price purchase of the same cash commodity by the same person; and
(B) Twelve months' unsold anticipated production of the same commodity by the same person provided that no such position is maintained in any agreement, contract or transaction during the five last trading days.
(ii) Purchases of any agreement, contract or transaction in an excluded commodity on a designated contract market or swap execution facility that is a trading facility which do not exceed in quantity:
(A) The fixed-price sale of the same cash commodity by the same person;
(B) The quantity equivalent of fixed-price sales of the cash products and by-products of such commodity by the same person; and
(C) Twelve months' unfilled anticipated requirements of the same cash commodity for processing, manufacturing, or feeding by the same person, provided that such transactions and positions in the five last trading
(iii) Offsetting sales and purchases in any agreement, contract or transaction in an excluded commodity on a designated contract market or swap execution facility that is a trading facility which do not exceed in quantity that amount of the same cash commodity which has been bought and sold by the same person at unfixed prices basis different delivery months of the contract market, provided that no such position is maintained in any agreement, contract or transaction during the five last trading days.
(iv) Purchases or sales by an agent who does not own or has not contracted to sell or purchase the offsetting cash commodity at a fixed price, provided that the agent is responsible for the merchandising of the cash position that is being offset, and the agent has a contractual arrangement with the person who owns the commodity or has the cash market commitment being offset.
(v) Sales and purchases described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this definition may also be offset other than by the same quantity of the same cash commodity, provided that the fluctuations in value of the position for in any agreement, contract or transaction are substantially related to the fluctuations in value of the actual or anticipated cash position, and provided that the positions in any agreement, contract or transaction shall not be maintained during the five last trading days.
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Any bank or trust company or any person acting as an employee thereof;
(ii) Any news reporter, news columnist, or news editor of the print or electronic media or any lawyer, accountant, or teacher;
(iii) Any floor broker or futures commission merchant;
(iv) The publisher or producer of any print or electronic data of general and regular dissemination, including its employees;
(v) The named fiduciary, or trustee, of any defined benefit plan which is subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or any fiduciary whose sole business is to advise that plan;
(vi) Any contract market; and
(vii) Such other persons not within the intent of this definition as the Commission may specify by rule, regulation or order:
(2)
(i) To whom a commodity trading advisor provides advice, for compensation or profit, either directly or through publications, writings, or electronic media, as to the value of, or the advisability of trading in, any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery, security futures product or swap; any agreement, contract or transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(D)(i) of the Act; any commodity option authorized under section 4c of the Act; any leverage transaction authorized under section 19 of the Act; or
(ii) To whom, for compensation or profit, and as part of a regular business, the commodity trading advisor issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning any of the activities referred to in the definition of commodity trading advisor in this section. The term client includes, without limitation, any subscriber of a commodity trading advisor.
(1) A major swap participant, as defined in section 1a(33) of the Act and in this section, is an eligible contract participant;
(2) A swap dealer, as defined in section 1a(49) of the Act and in this section, is an eligible contract participant;
(3) A major security-based swap participant, as defined in section 3(a)(67) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and § 240.3a67-1 of this title, is an eligible contract participant;
(4) A security-based swap dealer, as defined in section 3(a)(71) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and § 240.3a71-1 of this title, is an eligible contract participant;
(5)(i) A transaction-level commodity pool with one or more direct participants that is not an eligible contract participant is not itself an eligible contract participant under either section 1a(18)(A)(iv) or section 1a(18)(A)(v) of the Act for purposes of entering into transactions described in sections 2(c)(2)(B)(vi) and 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act; and
(ii) In determining whether a commodity pool that is a direct participant in a transaction-level commodity pool is an eligible contract participant for purposes of paragraph (5)(i) of this definition, the participants in the commodity pool that is a direct participant in the transaction-level commodity pool shall not be considered unless the transaction-level commodity pool, any commodity pool holding a direct or indirect interest in such transaction-level commodity pool, or any commodity pool in which such transaction-level commodity pool holds a direct or indirect interest, has been structured to evade subtitle A of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by permitting persons that are not eligible contract participants to participate in agreements, contracts, or transactions described in section 2(c)(2)(B)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act;
(6) A commodity pool that does not have total assets exceeding $5,000,000 or that is not operated by a person described in subclause (A)(iv)(II) of section 1a(18) of the Act is not an eligible contract participant pursuant to clause (A)(v) of such section;
(7)(i) For purposes of a swap (but not a security-based swap, security-based swap agreement or mixed swap) used to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, an entity may, in determining its net worth for purposes of section 1a(18)(A)(v)(III) of the Act, include the net worth of any owner of such entity, provided that all the owners of such entity are eligible contract participants;
(ii)(A) For purposes of identifying the owners of an entity under paragraph (7)(i) of this definition, any person holding a direct ownership interest in such entity shall be considered to be an owner of such entity; provided, however, that any shell company shall be disregarded, and the owners of such shell company shall be considered to be the owners of any entity owned by such shell company;
(B) For purposes of paragraph (7)(ii)(A) of this definition, the term
(C) In determining whether an owner of an entity is an eligible contract participant for purposes of paragraph (7)(i) of this definition, an individual may be considered to be a proprietorship eligible contract participant only if the individual—
(
(
(
(
(iii) For purposes of paragraph (7)(i) of this definition, a swap is used to hedge or mitigate commercial risk if the swap complies with the conditions in the definition in this section of hedging or mitigating commercial risk; and
(8) Notwithstanding section 1a(18)(A)(iv) of the Act and paragraph (5) of this definition, a commodity pool that enters into an agreement, contract, or transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(B)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Act is an eligible contract participant with respect to such agreement, contract, or transaction, regardless of whether each participant in such commodity pool is an eligible contract participant, if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The commodity pool is not formed for the purpose of evading regulation under section 2(c)(2)(B) or section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act or related Commission rules, regulations or orders;
(ii) The commodity pool has total assets exceeding $10,000,000; and
(iii) The commodity pool is formed and operated by a registered commodity pool operator or by a commodity pool operator who is exempt from registration as such pursuant to § 4.13(a)(3) of this chapter.
(i) A security-based swap dealer;
(ii) A major security-based swap participant;
(iii) A commodity pool as defined in section 1a(10) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(10);
(iv) A private fund as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a);
(v) An employee benefit plan as defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) of section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1002; and
(vi) A person predominantly engaged in activities that are in the business of banking or financial in nature, as defined in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. 1843(k).
(2) For purposes of section 1a(33) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(33), and the definition of a major swap participant in this section, the term highly leveraged means the existence of a ratio of an entity's total liabilities to equity in excess of 12 to 1 as measured at the close of business on the last business day of the applicable fiscal quarter. For
(1) The futures contract that the agreement, contract, or transaction references or upon which the agreement, contract, or transaction is based is a qualifying foreign futures contract that satisfies the conditions of rule 3a12-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.3a12-8) applicable to qualifying foreign futures contracts;
(2) The agreement, contract, or transaction is traded on or through a board of trade (as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act);
(3) The debt securities upon which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced and any security used to determine the cash settlement amount pursuant to paragraph (4) of this definition were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77
(4) The agreement, contract, or transaction may only be cash settled; and
(5) The agreement, contract or transaction is not entered into by the issuer of the debt securities upon which the qualifying foreign futures contract is based or referenced (including any security used to determine the cash payment due on settlement of such agreement, contract or transaction), an affiliate (as defined in the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77
(1) Such position:
(i) Is economically appropriate to the reduction of risks in the conduct and management of a commercial enterprise (or of a majority-owned affiliate of the enterprise), where the risks arise from:
(A) The potential change in the value of assets that a person owns, produces, manufactures, processes, or merchandises or reasonably anticipates owning, producing, manufacturing, processing, or merchandising in the ordinary course of business of the enterprise;
(B) The potential change in the value of liabilities that a person has incurred or reasonably anticipates incurring in the ordinary course of business of the enterprise; or
(C) The potential change in the value of services that a person provides, purchases, or reasonably anticipates providing or purchasing in the ordinary course of business of the enterprise;
(D) The potential change in the value of assets, services, inputs, products, or commodities that a person owns, produces, manufactures, processes, merchandises, leases, or sells, or reasonably anticipates owning, producing, manufacturing, processing, merchandising, leasing, or selling in the ordinary course of business of the enterprise;
(E) Any potential change in value related to any of the foregoing arising from interest, currency, or foreign exchange rate movements associated with such assets, liabilities, services, inputs, products, or commodities; or
(F) Any fluctuation in interest, currency, or foreign exchange rate exposures arising from a person's current or anticipated assets or liabilities; or
(ii) Qualifies as bona fide hedging for purposes of an exemption from position limits under the Act; or
(iii) Qualifies for hedging treatment under:
(A) Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging (formerly known as Statement No. 133); or
(B) Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments; and
(2) Such position is:
(i) Not held for a purpose that is in the nature of speculation, investing or trading; and
(ii) Not held to hedge or mitigate the risk of another swap or security-based swap position, unless that other position itself is held for the purpose of hedging or mitigating commercial risk as defined by this definition or § 240.3a67-4 of this title.
(i) That is not a swap dealer; and
(ii)(A) That maintains a substantial position in swaps for any of the major swap categories, excluding both positions held for hedging or mitigating commercial risk, and positions maintained by any employee benefit plan (or any contract held by such a plan) as defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) of section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1002, for the primary purpose of hedging or mitigating any risk directly associated with the operation of the plan;
(B) Whose outstanding swaps create substantial counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States banking system or financial markets; or
(C) That is a financial entity that:
(
(
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) That person will not be deemed a major swap participant pursuant to the timing requirements specified in paragraph (3) of this definition; but
(ii) That person will be deemed a major swap participant pursuant to the timing requirements specified in paragraph (3) of this definition at the end of the next fiscal quarter if the person exceeds any of the applicable daily average thresholds in that next fiscal quarter.
(5)
(6)
(i)
(B)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(iii)
(
(B)(
(
(C) For purposes of the calculations set forth in this paragraph (6)(iii) of the major swap participant definition:
(
(
(iv) For purposes of the calculations set forth in paragraph (6) of this definition, the person shall use the effective notional amount of a position rather than the stated notional amount of the position if the stated notional amount is leveraged or enhanced by the structure of the position.
(v) No presumption shall arise that a person is required to perform the calculations needed to determine if it is a major swap participant, solely by reason that the person does not meet the conditions specified in paragraph (6)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this definition.
(7)
(i)(A) There are nine or fewer non-affiliated issuers of securities that are reference entities included in the index, provided that an issuer of securities shall not be deemed a reference entity included in the index for purposes of this definition unless:
(
(
(B) The effective notional amount allocated to any reference entity included in the index comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting;
(C) The effective notional amount allocated to any five non-affiliated reference entities included in the index comprises more than 60 percent of the index's weighting; or
(D) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, for each reference entity included in the index, none of the criteria in paragraphs (1)(i)(D)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii)(A) The index is not composed solely of reference entities that are issuers of exempted securities as defined in section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12)), as in effect on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 (other than any municipal security as defined in section 3(a)(29) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(29))), as in effect on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982; and
(B) Without taking into account any portion of the index composed of
(2) Paragraph (1)(i)(D) of this definition will not apply with respect to a reference entity included in the index if:
(i) The effective notional amounts allocated to such reference entity comprise less than five percent of the index's weighting; and
(ii) The effective notional amounts allocated to reference entities included in the index that satisfy paragraph (1)(i)(D) of this definition comprise at least 80 percent of the index's weighting.
(3) For purposes of this definition:
(i) A reference entity included in the index is affiliated with another reference entity included in the index (for purposes of paragraph (3)(iv) of this definition) or another entity (for purposes of paragraph (3)(v) of this definition) if it controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, that other reference entity included in the index or other entity, as applicable; provided that each reference entity included in the index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(77)) will not be considered affiliated with any other reference entity included in the index or any other entity that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security.
(ii) Control for purposes of this section means ownership of more than 50 percent of the equity of a reference entity included in the index (for purposes of paragraph (3)(iv) of this definition) or another entity (for purposes of paragraph (3)(v) of this definition), or the ability to direct the voting of more than 50 percent of the voting equity of a reference entity included in the index (for purposes of paragraph (3)(iv) of this definition) or another entity (for purposes of paragraph (3)(v) of this definition).
(iii) In identifying a reference entity included in the index for purposes of this section, the term reference entity includes:
(A) An issuer of securities;
(B) An issuer of securities that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(77)); and
(C) An issuer of securities that is a borrower with respect to any loan identified in an index of borrowers or loans.
(iv) For purposes of calculating the thresholds in paragraphs (1)(i)(A) through (1)(i)(C) of this definition, the term reference entity included in the index includes a single reference entity included in the index or a group of affiliated reference entities included in the index as determined in accordance with paragraph (3)(i) of this definition (with each reference entity included in the index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(77)) being considered a separate reference entity included in the index).
(v) For purposes of determining whether one of the criterion in either paragraphs (1)(i)(D)(
(i)(A) The index is composed of nine or fewer securities or securities that are issued by nine or fewer non-affiliated issuers, provided that a security shall not be deemed a component of the index for purposes of this section unless:
(
(
(B) The effective notional amount allocated to the securities of any issuer included in the index comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting;
(C) The effective notional amount allocated to the securities of any five non-affiliated issuers included in the index comprises more than 60 percent of the index's weighting; or
(D) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, for each security included in the index, none of the criteria in paragraphs (1)(i)(D)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii)(A) The index is not composed solely of exempted securities as defined in section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12)), as in effect on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 (other than any municipal security as defined in section 3(a)(29) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(29))), as in effect on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982; and
(B) Without taking into account any portion of the index composed of exempted securities as defined in section 3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12)), as in effect on the date of enactment of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 (other than any municipal security as defined in section 3(a)(29) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(29))), the remaining portion of the index would be within the term
(2) Paragraph (1)(i)(D) of this definition will not apply with respect to securities of an issuer included in the index if:
(i) The effective notional amounts allocated to all securities of such issuer included in the index comprise less than five percent of the index's weighting; and
(ii) The securities that satisfy paragraph (1)(i)(D) of this definition comprise at least 80 percent of the index's weighting.
(3) For purposes of this definition:
(i) An issuer of securities included in the index is affiliated with another issuer of securities included in the index (for purposes of paragraph (3)(iv) of this definition) or another entity (for purposes of paragraph (3)(v) of this definition) if it controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, that other issuer or other entity, as applicable; provided that each issuer of securities included in the index that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(77)) will not be considered affiliated with any other issuer of securities included in the index or any other entity that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security.
(ii) Control for purposes of this section means ownership of more than 50 percent of the equity of an issuer of securities included in the index (for purposes of paragraph (3)(iv) of this definition) or another entity (for purposes of paragraph (3)(v) of this definition), or the ability to direct the voting of more than 50 percent of the voting equity an issuer of securities included in the index (for purposes of paragraph (3)(iv) of this definition) or another entity (for purposes of paragraph (3)(v) of this definition).
(iii) In identifying an issuer of securities included in the index for purposes of this section, the term issuer includes:
(A) An issuer of securities; and
(B) An issuer of securities that is an issuing entity of an asset-backed security as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(77)).
(iv) For purposes of calculating the thresholds in paragraphs (1)(i)(A) through (1)(i)(C) of the definition of the meaning of
(v) For purposes of determining whether one of the criterion in either paragraphs (1)(i)(D)(
(2)
(i)(A) A swap on the index is traded on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market, swap execution facility, or foreign board of trade for at least 30 days as a swap on an index that was not a narrow-based security index; or
(B) Such index was not a narrow-based security index during every trading day of the six full calendar months preceding a date no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of trading of a swap on such index on a market described in paragraph (2)(i)(A) of this definition; and
(ii) The index has been a narrow-based security index for no more than
(3)
(i)(A) A security-based swap on the index is traded on a national securities exchange or security-based swap execution facility for at least 30 days as a security-based swap on a narrow-based security index; or
(B) Such index was a narrow-based security index during every trading day of the six full calendar months preceding a date no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of trading of a security-based swap on such index on a market described in paragraph (3)(i)(A) of this definition; and
(ii) The index has been a security index that is not a narrow-based security index for no more than 45 business days over three consecutive calendar months.
(4)
(ii) Solely with respect to a security-based swap that is traded on a national securities exchange or security-based swap execution facility, an index that becomes a security index that is not a narrow-based security index under paragraph (3) of this definition solely because it was not a narrow-based security index for more than 45 business days over three consecutive calendar months shall be a narrow-based security index for the following three calendar months.
(i) $5 billion in daily average aggregate uncollateralized outward exposure; or
(ii) $8 billion in:
(A) Daily average aggregate uncollateralized outward exposure plus
(B) Daily average aggregate potential outward exposure.
(2)
(i) For rate swaps:
(A) $3 billion in daily average aggregate uncollateralized outward exposure; or
(B) $6 billion in:
(
(
(ii) For credit swaps:
(A) $1 billion in daily average aggregate uncollateralized outward exposure; or
(B) $2 billion in:
(
(
(iii) For equity swaps:
(A) $1 billion in daily average aggregate uncollateralized outward exposure; or
(B) $2 billion in:
(
(
(iv) For other commodity swaps:
(A) $1 billion in daily average aggregate uncollateralized outward exposure; or
(B) $2 billion in:
(
(
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(B) Such adjustments may not take into account any offset associated with positions that the person has with separate counterparties.
(iv)
(3)
(A) The aggregate potential outward exposure for each of the person's swap positions in a major swap category that are not subject to daily mark-to-market margining and are not cleared by a registered or exempt clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization, as calculated in accordance with paragraph (3)(ii) of this definition; and
(B) The aggregate potential outward exposure for each of the person's swap positions in such major swap category that are either subject to daily mark-to-market margining or are cleared by a registered or exempt clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization, as calculated in accordance with paragraph (3)(iii) of this definition.
(ii)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(iii)
(A) Potential outward exposure equals the potential exposure that would be attributed to such positions using the procedures in paragraph (3)(ii) of this definition multiplied by:
(
(
(B) Solely for purposes of calculating potential outward exposure:
(
(
(
(
(4)
(5)
(2)
(A) A cross-currency swap;
(B) A currency option, foreign currency option, foreign exchange option and foreign exchange rate option;
(C) A foreign exchange forward;
(D) A foreign exchange swap;
(E) A forward rate agreement; and
(F) A non-deliverable forward involving foreign exchange.
(ii) The term swap does not include an agreement, contract, or transaction described in paragraph (2)(i) of this definition that is otherwise excluded by section 1a(47)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act.
(3)
(i) A foreign exchange forward or a foreign exchange swap shall not be considered a swap if the Secretary of the Treasury makes a determination described in section 1a(47)(E)(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act.
(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(i) of this definition:
(A) The reporting requirements set forth in section 4r of the Commodity Exchange Act and regulations promulgated thereunder shall apply to a foreign exchange forward or foreign exchange swap; and
(B) The business conduct standards set forth in section 4s(h) of the Commodity Exchange Act and regulations promulgated thereunder shall apply to a swap dealer or major swap participant that is a party to a foreign exchange forward or foreign exchange swap.
(iii) For purposes of section 1a(47)(E) of the Commodity Exchange Act and this definition, the term
(iv) For purposes of section 1a(47)(E) of the Commodity Exchange Act and this definition, the term
(v) For purposes of sections 1a(24) and 1a(25) of the Commodity Exchange Act and this definition, the following transactions are not foreign exchange forwards or foreign exchange swaps:
(A) A currency swap or a cross-currency swap;
(B) A currency option, foreign currency option, foreign exchange option, or foreign exchange rate option; and
(C) A non-deliverable forward involving foreign exchange.
(4)
(A) By its terms or by law, as a condition of performance on the agreement, contract, or transaction:
(
(
(
(
(B) Is provided:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(C) Is provided in accordance with the conditions set forth in paragraph (4)(i)(B) of this definition and is one of the following types of products:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) The terms
(5)
(6)
(ii) An interest rate swap or currency swap, including but not limited to a transaction identified in paragraph (3)(v) of this definition, that is willfully structured as a foreign exchange forward or foreign exchange swap to evade any provision of Subtitle A shall be deemed a swap for purposes of Subtitle A and the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission promulgated thereunder.
(iii) An agreement, contract, or transaction of a bank that is not under the regulatory jurisdiction of an appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 1a(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act), where the agreement, contract, or transaction is willfully structured as an identified banking product (as defined in section 402 of the Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000) to evade the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, shall be deemed a swap for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission promulgated thereunder.
(iv) The form, label, and written documentation of an agreement, contract, or transaction shall not be dispositive in determining whether the agreement, contract, or transaction has been willfully structured to evade as provided in paragraphs (6)(i) through (6)(iii) of this definition.
(v) An agreement, contract, or transaction that has been willfully structured to evade as provided in paragraphs (6)(i) through (6)(iii) of this definition shall be considered in determining whether a person that so willfully structured to evade is a swap dealer or major swap participant.
(vi) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no agreement, contract, or transaction structured as a security (including a security-based swap) under the securities laws (as defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47))) shall be deemed a swap pursuant to this paragraph (6) or shall be considered for purposes of paragraph (6)(v) of this definition.
(i) Holds itself out as a dealer in swaps;
(ii) Makes a market in swaps;
(iii) Regularly enters into swaps with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for its own account; or
(iv) Engages in any activity causing it to be commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in swaps.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii)
(B)
(C) Nine months after publication of the report required by paragraph (4)(ii)(B) of this definition, and after giving due consideration to that report and any associated public comment, the Commission may either:
(
(
(D) If the phase-in termination date has not been previously established pursuant to paragraph (4)(ii)(C) of this definition, then in any event the phase-in termination date shall occur five years after the date that a swap data repository first receives swap data in accordance with part 45 of this chapter.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(5)
(i) An insured depository institution shall be considered to have entered into a swap with a customer in connection with originating a loan, as defined in paragraphs (5)(ii) and (iii) of this definition, with that customer only if:
(A) The insured depository institution enters into the swap with the customer no earlier than 90 days before and no later than 180 days after the date of execution of the applicable loan agreement, or no earlier than 90 days before and no later than 180 days after any transfer of principal to the customer by the insured depository institution pursuant to the loan;
(B)(
(
(C) The duration of the swap does not extend beyond termination of the loan;
(D) The insured depository institution is:
(
(
(
(E) The aggregate notional amount of all swaps entered into by the customer in connection with the financial terms of the loan is, at any time, not more than the aggregate principal amount outstanding under the loan at that time; and
(F) If the swap is not accepted for clearing by a derivatives clearing organization, the insured depository institution reports the swap as required by section 4r of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 6r (except as otherwise provided in section 4r(a)(3)(A), 7 U.S.C. 6r(a)(3)(A), or section 4r(a)(3)(B), 7 U.S.C. 6r(a)(3)(B) of the Act).
(ii) An insured depository institution shall be considered to have originated a loan with a customer if the insured depository institution:
(A) Directly transfers the loan amount to the customer;
(B) Is a part of a syndicate of lenders that is the source of the loan amount that is transferred to the customer;
(C) Purchases or receives a participation in the loan; or
(D) Otherwise is the source of funds that are transferred to the customer pursuant to the loan or any refinancing of the loan.
(iii) The term loan shall not include:
(A) Any transaction that is a sham, whether or not intended to qualify for the exclusion from the definition of the term
(B) Any synthetic loan, including, without limitation, a loan credit default swap or loan total return swap.
(6)
(ii)
(
(
(
(B) For purposes of this paragraph (6)(ii) of this definition, the term
(
(
(C) For purposes of this paragraph (6)(ii) of this definition, a swap shall be deemed to be entered into by a cooperative association of producers with a member of such cooperative association of producers when the swap is between a cooperative association of producers and a person that is a member of a cooperative association of producers that is itself a member of the first cooperative association of producers.
(iii)
(A) The person enters into the swap for the purpose of offsetting or mitigating the person's price risks that arise from the potential change in the value of one or several—
(
(
(
(B) The swap represents a substitute for transactions made or to be made or positions taken or to be taken by the person at a later time in a physical marketing channel;
(C) The swap is economically appropriate to the reduction of the person's risks in the conduct and management of a commercial enterprise;
(D) The swap is entered into in accordance with sound commercial practices; and
(E) The person does not enter into the swap in connection with activity structured to evade designation as a swap dealer.
(iv)
(A) Is registered with the Commission as a floor trader pursuant to § 3.11 of this chapter;
(B) Enters into swaps with proprietary funds for that trader's own account solely on or subject to the rules of a designated contract market or swap execution facility and submits each such swap for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization;
(C) Is not an affiliated person of a registered swap dealer;
(D) Does not directly, or through an affiliated person, negotiate the terms of swap agreements, other than price and quantity or to participate in a request for quote process subject to the rules of a designated contract market or a swap execution facility;
(E) Does not directly or through an affiliated person offer or provide swap clearing services to third parties;
(F) Does not directly or through an affiliated person enter into swaps that would qualify as hedging physical positions pursuant to paragraph (6)(iii) of this definition or
(G) Does not participate in any market making program offered by a designated contract market or swap execution facility; and
(H) Notwithstanding the fact such person is not registered as a swap dealer, such person complies with §§ 23.201, 23.202, 23.203, and 23.600 of this chapter with respect to each such swap as if it were a swap dealer.
5 U.S.C. 552, 552b; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6(c), 6b, 6c, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 12a, and 23.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) Will use commodity futures or commodity options contracts, or swaps solely for bona fide hedging purposes within the meaning and intent of the definition of bona fide hedging transactions and positions for excluded commodities in §§ 1.3 and 151.5 of this chapter; Provided however, That, in addition, with respect to positions in commodity futures or commodity options contracts, or swaps which do not come within the meaning and intent of the definition of bona fide hedging transactions and positions for excluded commodities in §§ 1.3 and 151.5 of this chapter, a qualifying entity may represent that the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish such positions will not exceed five percent of the liquidation value of the qualifying entity's portfolio, after taking into account unrealized profits and unrealized losses on any such contracts it has entered into; and, Provided further, That in the case of an option that is in-the-money at the time of the purchase, the in-the-money amount as defined in § 190.01(x) of this chapter may be excluded in computing such five percent; or
(B) The aggregate net notional value of commodity futures, commodity options contracts, or swaps positions not used solely for bona fide hedging purposes within the meaning and intent of the definition of bona fide hedging transactions and positions for excluded commodities in §§ 1.3 and 151.5 of this
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21, and 23.
7 U.S.C. 2, 5, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 9, 12a, 19, and 21, as amended by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
7 U.S.C. 2, 4, 5, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6t, 12a, and 19.
7 U.S.C. 6g(a), 6i, and 12a(5).
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6p, 6r, 6s, 6t, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21.
Section 23.160 also issued under 7 U.S.C. 2(i); Sec. 721(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1641 (2010).
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6c, and 12a, unless otherwise noted.
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-1, 7b-3, 8, 9, 15, and 21, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
7 U.S.C. 2, 7a-1, and 12a; 12 U.S.C. 5464; 15 U.S.C. 8325.
Sections 206, 251 and 252, Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6f, 6j, 7a-2, 12a; 15 U.S.C. 78g(c)(2).
7 U.S.C. 2(h) and 7a-1 as amended by Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
(b) * * *
(1) Is entered into with a member of the exempt cooperative in connection with originating loan or loans for the member, which means the requirements of paragraphs (5)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the definition of
7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, and 12a(5).
(d) * * * (1) No exchange bylaw, rule, regulation, or resolution adopted pursuant to this section shall apply to bona fide hedging positions as defined by a contract market in accordance with the definition of
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6t, 12a, 19, as amended by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For purposes of excluded commodities, no designated contract market or swap execution facility that is a trading facility by law, rule, regulation, or resolution adopted pursuant to this section shall apply to any transaction or position within the definition of
7 U.S.C. 6b, 6c, 6g, 6j and 12a, unless otherwise noted.
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6g, 6h, 6k, 6l, 6o, 7, 12a, 21, and 23, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for residues of indaziflam in or on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide in or on grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, forage and grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, hay, grown in rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the CRP. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of indaziflam in or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.
This regulation is effective February 23, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 24, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0551, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0551 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 24, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0551, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l
Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative,
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
The Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) requested a specific emergency exemption for the use of indaziflam in rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the conservation reserve program (CRP) to control medusahead (
As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of indaziflam in or on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the CRP. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent, non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, forage and grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, hay on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the CRP after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether indaziflam meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the CRP or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of indaziflam by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c), nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any State other than Wyoming to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18, absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for indaziflam, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under
Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and the time-limited tolerances for residues of indaziflam on grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, forage at 30 ppm and grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, hay at 100 ppm from use on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the CRP. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing time-limited tolerances follows.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for indaziflam used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) and the Tier 1 Rice model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of indaziflam for acute exposures are estimated to be 84 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 3.7 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 26 ppb for surface water and 3.7 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 84 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 26 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Indaziflam is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf, gardens, and trees. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-term dermal and inhalation handler exposure is expected for adults as a result of applying products containing indaziflam to lawns/turf and gardens/trees using a variety of application equipment. Short-term post-application dermal exposure is expected for adults, children 11 to 16, and children 6 to 11 years old as a result of playing, mowing and/or golfing on treated turf. Short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures (hand to mouth, object to mouth, incidental soil ingestion) are expected for children 1 to 2 years old as a result from playing on treated turf/lawns. Lastly, short-term post-application dermal exposure is expected for adults and children 6 to 11 years old as result of application to gardens and trees. The Agency selected only the most conservative residential adult and child scenarios to be included in the aggregate estimates, based on the lowest overall MOE (
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at:
4.
EPA has not found indaziflam to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and indaziflam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that indaziflam does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for indaziflam is complete.
ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in dogs and rats throughout the database, which included the dog subchronic toxicity study, the rat subchronic toxicity, the rat acute, subchronic, and developmental neurotoxicity screening batteries, the rat 2-generation reproduction study, the rat chronic toxicity study, and the rat combined carcinogenicity/chronic toxicity study. Evidence of neurotoxicity was manifested as neuropathology in dogs and as decreased motor activity and clinical signs (
iii. No developmental effects were observed in rabbits up to maternally toxic dose levels. Offspring effects in the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats and multi-generation toxicity studies only occurred at exposure levels that also produced maternal toxicity and these offspring effects were not considered more severe than the parental effects. In addition, clear NOAELs/LOAELs were identified for these studies. Therefore, EPA concluded that there is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to rat or rabbit fetuses exposed
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to indaziflam in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by indaziflam.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Indaziflam is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to indaziflam.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this document for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,400 for adults and 580 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for indaziflam is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, indaziflam is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for indaziflam.
5.
6.
An adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS) method (DH-003-P07-02) for indaziflam and FDAT) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
The Codex has not established MRLs for indaziflam.
Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide indaziflam, N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic (CAS Reg. No. 64742-65-0) when used as an inert ingredient (carrier) in pesticide products applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest and to animals. SciReg., Inc., on behalf of HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic when used in accordance with the terms of those exemptions.
This regulation is effective February 23, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 24, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0179, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0179 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 24, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0179, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(c)(2)(B) requires EPA to take into account the considerations set forth in subparagraphs (C) and (D) of subsection (b)(2) when making this exemption safety determination. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
Petroleum materials are defined by how they are processed, physical properties and product use specifications. Distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic are characterized as highly and severely refined distillate base oils. Petroleum materials processed in this manner behave similarly. Therefore, toxicity data on highly and severely refined distillate base oils are used as read across data to characterize the toxicity of similarly processed petroleum materials. Since limited toxicity data exist on distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic, toxicity data on other highly and severely refined distillate base oils are used to characterize toxicity due to distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic.
The acute oral toxicity is low in rats for distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic; the lethal dose, LD
Oral repeated dose studies are not available on distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic; however, studies are available on a similarly processed petroleum material (C
No systemic toxicity is observed up to 2,000 mg/kg/day following 28 days or 13 weeks of dermal exposure to distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic in rabbits and rats. No systemic toxicity is observed in a 90-day or 13-week dermal toxicity studies in male rats at 1,000 mg/kg/day and 2,000 mg/kg/day of distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic, respectively. In an OECD guideline developmental toxicity study via dermal exposure, no systemic or dermal toxicity is observed at 2,000 mg/kg/day.
Following inhalation exposure, multiple lung effects are observed at 0.52 g/m
No maternal, offspring or reproduction toxicity is observed up to 1,150 mg/kg/day in a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats on a similarly processed petroleum, distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy paraffinic.
Although no carcinogenicity studies with distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic are available, none of the available data concerning highly and severely refined distillate base oils indicate any toxicological endpoint of concern up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Additionally, a Derek Nexus structural alert analysis was conducted with distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic and indicated no structural alerts for carcinogenicity or mutagenicity. Therefore, distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic is not expected to be carcinogenic.
Evidence of neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity is not observed in the submitted studies. Therefore, distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic is not expected to be neurotoxic or immunotoxic.
Metabolism studies show that mineral oils and aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons are poorly absorbed across the gastrointestinal tract lining and rapidly eliminated unchanged in the feces. Also, dermal absorption and inhalation absorption is very poor.
The available toxicity studies support a conclusion that distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic have very low overall toxicity. The NOAELs in a 90-day oral and reproduction toxicity studies on similarly processed petroleum distillates were >1,000 mg/kg/day; the limit dose. Effects observed in inhalation studies are due to irritating effects rather than systemic toxicity. Since toxicity was only observed at doses above the limit dose, an endpoint of concern for risk assessment purposes was not identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment was conducted for acute and chronic dietary exposures and short and intermediate dermal and inhalation exposures.
1.
Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic may occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops or animals. However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
2.
3.
Distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. Based on the discussion above, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic was not conducted.
4.
Based on the available data, distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic does not have a toxic mechanism; therefore, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply.
1.
Based on the lack of threshold effects, EPA has not identified any toxicological endpoints of concern and is conducting a qualitative assessment of distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic. That qualitative assessment does not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an assessment of distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.
Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic residues.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
One comment was received urging the Agency not to allow residues of pesticides in or on food. Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed in or on food, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes the establishment of pesticide tolerances or exemptions where the Agency determines that tolerance or exemption meets the safety standard imposed by the statute. EPA has sufficient data to support a safety determination for the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic. The commenter provided no additional information supporting a determination that the exemption is not safe.
Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established for residues of distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic (CAS Reg. No. 64742-65-0) when used as an inert ingredient (carrier) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 and when applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.930.
This action establishes tolerance exemptions under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of quizalofop ethyl in or on the commodities wheat germ and milled byproducts, and increases the tolerances in or on wheat forage, hay, and straw. Albaugh, LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 23, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 24, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0360, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0360 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 24, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0360, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
EPA determined that a separate tolerance is not needed for wheat bran. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for quizalofop ethyl, including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with quizalofop ethyl follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as
Quizalofop ethyl is a 50/50 racemic mixture of R- and S-enantiomers. Quizalofop-P-ethyl, the purified R-enantiomer, is the pesticidally-active isomer. Since the toxicological profiles of quizalofop ethyl and quizalofop-P-ethyl are similar, the available toxicity studies are adequate to support both compounds. For the purposes of this final rule, both quizalofop ethyl and quizalofop-P-ethyl are collectively referred to as “quizalofop ethyl.”
Quizalofop ethyl has very low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure, is not an eye or skin irritant, and is not a skin sensitizer. There were no adverse effects observed in the oral toxicity studies that could be attributable to a single-dose exposure.
Repeated-dose toxicity studies indicate the liver as the target organ, as evidenced by increased liver weights and histopathological changes. Following oral administration, quizalofop ethyl is rapidly excreted via urine and feces. In the subchronic oral toxicity rat study, effects of decreased body weight gains, increased liver weight, and centrilobular liver cell enlargement were observed. In the subchronic oral toxicity dog study, an increased incidence of testicular atrophy was observed. In the combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats, an increased incidence of centrilobular liver cell enlargement was observed in both sexes and mild anemia in males.
No dermal toxicity effects were observed in the subchronic dermal toxicity rabbit study at up to the limit dose. Subchronic inhalation toxicity is assumed to be equivalent to oral toxicity. In the chronic oral toxicity dog study, no toxicity effects were observed at the highest dose tested.
In the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, maternal effects including decreased body weight gains and food consumption were observed; no developmental effects were observed up to the highest dose tested. In the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats, maternal effects including decreased body weight and decreased body weight gains were observed at the same dose level that resulted in prenatal and postnatal effects (decreased percentage of pups born alive and decreased pup weights); no evidence of adverse effects on the functional development of pups was observed.
Although tumors were observed in male and female mice after exposure to quizalofop ethyl, the overall evidence for carcinogenicity is weak, as discussed in supporting documents. Additionally, the point of departure used for establishing the chronic reference dose for quizalofop ethyl is significantly lower (30X) than the dose that induced tumors in male and female mice. EPA has determined that quantification of cancer risk using a non-linear approach would adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, which could result from exposure to quizalofop ethyl.
Based on the results of acceptable toxicity studies, quizalofop ethyl does not show evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology. Quizalofop ethyl showed no evidence of immunotoxicity.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by quizalofop ethyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for quizalofop ethyl used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit II.B. of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
•
•
•
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the average PCT for existing uses as follows: Barley: 1%; beans, green: 2.5%; canola: 5%; cotton: 1%; dry beans/peas: 15%; peas, green: 2.5%; soybeans: 2.5%; sugar beets: 2.5%; and sunflowers: 5%. For all other existing uses, including the amended use on wheat, 100% of the crop treated was assumed.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 to 7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT value for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and is rounded to the nearest multiple of 5% for use in the analysis; unless the average PCT value is estimated at less than 2.5% or 1%, in which case the Agency uses 2.5% or 1%, respectively, as the average PCT value in the analysis.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which quizalofop ethyl may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Based on the Modified Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of quizalofop ethyl for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 125 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 89 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 125 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
4.
EPA has not found quizalofop ethyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and quizalofop ethyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that quizalofop ethyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for quizalofop ethyl is complete.
ii. There is no indication that quizalofop ethyl is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no qualitative or quantitative evidence that quizalofop ethyl results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on tolerance-level residues, average PCTs for certain existing uses, and 100 PCT for other existing uses including the amended wheat use. EPA made conservative
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
An adequate enforcement methodology (Morse Meth-147, a liquid chromatography method using tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS/MS) for plant commodities including wheat) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for quizalofop ethyl.
EPA determined that a separate tolerance is not needed for wheat bran, since it is included in the commodity definition for wheat, milled byproducts, which includes wheat bran, middlings, and shorts.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of quizalofop ethyl in or on wheat, germ at 0.40 ppm and wheat, milled byproducts at 0.40 ppm. Existing tolerances are increased for residues of quizalofop ethyl in or on wheat, forage from 0.05 to 2.0 ppm; wheat, hay from 0.05 to 2.0 ppm; and wheat, straw from 0.05 to 0.80 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
b. Revise the entries “Wheat, forage”; “Wheat, hay”; and “Wheat, straw” in the table in paragraph (a)(1).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended (the Act), limits the amount of time an able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) can receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to 3 months in a 36-month period, unless the individual is working and/or participating in a work program half-time or more, or participating in workfare. The Act exempts individuals from the time limit for several reasons, including age, unfitness for work, or having a dependent child. The Act also provides State agencies with flexibility to request a waiver of this time limit if unemployment is high or the area does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment. Moreover, the Act gives States discretion to exempt 15 percent of the individuals who would otherwise be subject to the time limit.
The Department of Agriculture's (Department's) policy goal is to address food insecurity by providing supplemental food assistance and helping able-bodied SNAP participants move out of poverty and into work in a manner that is consistent with the structure and the intent of the Act. As described in Sections 2 and 6(d) of the Act, the goals of the program are to promote food security, self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility. In this Notice, the Department is seeking public input to inform potential policy, program, and regulatory changes to more consistently advance this goal.
Written comments must be received on or before April 9, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested persons to submit written comments on this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments may be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
•
•
• All written comments submitted in response to this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the written comments publicly available on the internet via
Sasha Gersten-Paal, Chief, Certification Policy Branch, SNAP Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition, Services, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 812, Alexandria, Virginia 22302 or (703) 305-2507 during regular business hours 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of low-income individuals and families. SNAP is the largest federal nutrition assistance program in the United States. As a result of the Great Recession, the national unemployment rate peaked at 9.7 percent for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. As with other recessions, there was a lag between the time that the national unemployment rate began to decrease and the time that the national poverty rate and SNAP participation began to decrease. SNAP participation peaked at an average of 47.6 million recipients per month in FY 2013. During that time period, the national average unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In FY 2017, the program served an average of 42.1 million recipients per month, and the national average unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. As Americans get back to work, it is appropriate to review how SNAP can better promote work and self-sufficiency so that fewer Americans need assistance from the program.
The Department is soliciting public comments on potential policy, program, and regulatory changes that could advance its goal of addressing food insecurity by helping able-bodied SNAP recipients obtain and maintain employment and aligning program regulations with the President's Budget proposals related to ABAWDs. The Department will consider comments received through this Notice to help inform development of potential policy, program, or regulatory changes.
The Department seeks input on potential regulatory or other changes that might better support States in accurately identifying ABAWDs subject to the time limit and providing meaningful opportunities for them to move towards self-sufficiency. The Department is also asking whether changes should be made to the existing process by which State agencies request to waive the ABAWD time limit, the information and data States are required to provide in supporting the waiver request, and the Department's implementation and duration of the waiver approval. If so, the Department is asking for information on changes that would better support the Department's goals. Moreover, the Department seeks input on 15 percent exemptions and how they may be better used to support State efforts to serve ABAWDs. The Department is receptive to suggested changes that could be made within the current statutory authority as well as changes that may require new or revised statutory authority. The Department believes that this public comment can inform the development of any rule that may ultimately be proposed.
SNAP work-related policies are best understood as three distinct, but interrelated and mutually supportive areas: The general work requirements, SNAP Employment and Training (SNAP E&T) programs, and the ABAWD time limit and work requirement. These work-related policies, the people they affect, and the ways in which they interact are summarized below.
The general work requirements apply to people ages 16 through 59, except for those who are physically or mentally unfit for employment, care for a child under age 6 or an incapacitated person, are already employed 30 hours or more per week, are already participating in a work program, or are in school half-time or more. In order to be eligible for SNAP benefits, people who are subject to the general work requirements must register for work, report to an employer if referred by the State agency, accept a bona fide offer of a suitable job, not voluntarily quit a job or reduce their work hours below 30 hours a week, and participate in a SNAP E&T program or a workfare program if assigned by the State agency.
People subject to the general work requirements are commonly called “work registrants.” People that do not comply with the general work requirements without good cause are disqualified from receiving SNAP for a period of time. These disqualification periods can vary by State and circumstances. When a person subject to the general work requirements does not comply, the State must determine whether the person has good cause before imposing any disqualification. Examples of good cause include illness, household emergency, lack of transportation, or other circumstances beyond the person's control. In accordance with current law, if the State finds that a person has good cause, it must not disqualify them.
The ABAWD time limit and work requirement apply to people ages 18 through 49, unless they are already exempt from the general work requirements, medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment, responsible for a child under 18, or pregnant. ABAWDs are also work registrants and must meet the general work requirements. In addition, ABAWDs subject to the time limit must work and/or participate in a work program 80 hours per month or more, or participate in and comply with workfare in order to receive SNAP for more than 3 months in a 36-month period. Participation in SNAP E&T, which is a type of work program, is one way a person can meet the 80 hour per month ABAWD work requirement, but other work programs are acceptable as well.
State agencies can request to waive the ABAWD time limit if an area has an unemployment rate of over 10 percent or the State can meet one of the regulatory options to show it does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment. If the time limit is waived, individuals are not required to meet the ABAWD work requirement in order to receive SNAP for more than 3 months in a 36-month period. However, even if the time limit is waived, ABAWDs remain subject to the general work requirements, as ABAWDs are work registrants, and the general work requirements cannot be waived. State agencies also have discretion to exempt, on a month-to-month basis, 15 percent of the individuals who would otherwise be subject to the time limit as estimated by the Department each year. Each 15 percent exemption extends eligibility to one ABAWD for one month.
The Department strongly supports the goal that individuals obtain gainful employment as a means to move to self-sufficiency. SNAP E&T programs are intended to help SNAP recipients gain skills, training, work, or experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular employment and become self-sufficient. The State agency must operate E&T programs, though it has significant flexibility in program design. The State determines who to serve through its E&T programs, what kind of activities to provide, and where to provide them. The State may provide other wrap-around services such as on-going case management, job coaching, or job retention services. The State is required to provide participant reimbursements for things that are necessary for participation in SNAP E&T such as transportation, books, safety equipment, or other items or services.
The State has the option to offer E&T on a voluntary basis to certain or all SNAP participants; or, the State can require all or certain work registrants to participate in E&T as a condition of eligibility, often referred to as “mandatory E&T”. If a work registrant is required to participate in E&T and does not comply without good cause, they are disqualified from receiving SNAP as explained above under
Currently, States have several options to provide ABAWDs nutrition assistance while getting experience or training that will help them get jobs and become self-sufficient. States may refer ABAWDs to other work programs such as State or local programs or programs operated through the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA) American Job Centers (AJCs). States may provide ABAWDs a slot in a workfare program or a SNAP E&T Program. However, all
There is no current requirement that States serve any or all ABAWDs through their SNAP E&T programs. However, if the State does require ABAWDs who are subject to the time limit to participate in E&T, it must apply the time limit and disqualify ABAWDs who fail to comply with the mandatory E&T requirements through the sanction process. In addition, States are eligible for a portion of a pool of $20 million in additional E&T funds if they pledge to offer all ABAWDs who are in the last month of their 3-month time limit a slot in an E&T component that fulfills the work requirement. These 100 percent federal funds are allocated across all pledge States based on the number of ABAWDs in each participating State, as a percentage of ABAWDs in all of the participating States.
The Department is concerned that, in some cases, the State flexibilities provided under 7 CFR 273.7 and 7 CFR 273.24 have been used in ways that do not strengthen the goal of helping SNAP recipients find and keep work when jobs are sufficiently available. In particular, the ABAWD time limit waivers represent an area of concern for the Department.
The decision to request and implement an ABAWD time limit waiver rests with the States. States can request to waive some areas in the State but not others, and not all States that are eligible for ABAWD time limit waivers request one. Economic conditions in the wake of the Great Recession resulted in an increase in the use of ABAWD time limit waivers. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act suspended the time limit across the country from April 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010, effectively waiving the time limit in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands for the second half of FY 2009 and all of FY 2010. From October 2010 through December 2013, the vast majority of States qualified for and continued to implement statewide ABAWD time limit waivers, meaning the waivers covered the entire State or jurisdiction.
Since that time, as economic conditions improved, there has been a decline in the use of these waivers. In the fourth quarter of FY 2013, 45 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands had waivers of the ABAWD time limit. Of those, 42 covered the entire state or jurisdiction and 6 covered only certain areas in the state or jurisdiction. In the fourth quarter of FY 2017, 33 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands had waivers of the ABAWD time limit. Of those, 9 covered the entire state or jurisdiction, and 27 covered only certain areas in the state or jurisdiction. However, the Department is concerned that the number of areas waived has not decreased as much as would be expected during the continued decline in unemployment rates over this time period. For these reasons, the Department is seeking comments on how to ensure the waiver criteria best reflects economic conditions.
The following questions represent particular areas in which the Department is interested in receiving comments. The questions are focused on ideas for regulatory or policy changes and seek information on better ways to meet the needs of SNAP participants and State agencies. However, the Department also invites commenters to address additional issues that are not described below but are within the scope of this review, particularly as it relates to opportunities to help participants move to self-sufficiency. Other comments that are not within the scope of this Notice will not be considered; therefore please refrain from including any comments that are not responsive to this particular request.
The Department believes that this review will benefit from a broad scope of public input. However, in addressing the questions that follow, commenters are encouraged to be as specific as possible. Please be sure to include the rationale underlying any suggested changes.
1. The Department is reviewing how it could take action on limiting ABAWD waivers as proposed in the President's budget proposals. In light of the Department's interest in helping SNAP participants find and maintain meaningful employment, how could the process for requesting to waive the time limit, the information needed to support waiver approval, and the waiver eligibility parameters be changed in order to provide appropriate relief for areas of high unemployment and a clearly demonstrated lack of jobs?
(a) How could the definition of “lack of sufficient jobs” be revised to better support these goals?
(b) States currently have discretion to define the area they are requesting to waive. Should States maintain this flexibility? Should an “economic area” be limited in geographic scope, such as to a single county, metropolitan area, or labor market area?
(c) Should FNS accept data from additional sources of information that are currently not considered? If so:
1. What data sources would that be?
2. What review process should FNS use to verify the validity of the data?
(d) How recent should the data and information used in support of a waiver be in relation to the waiver implementation date?
(e) Waivers are typically approved for 1 year, although under certain criteria 2 year waivers are available. Should FNS consider waivers of different time periods? If so, what time period and under what conditions?
2. How can existing authority and resources be best used to support ABAWDs as they transition to meaningful work and self-sufficiency? How could the Department better support State efforts to assess individuals' work readiness and identify appropriate services to help participants obtain and retain employment?
(a) What challenges and barriers do States face in helping ABAWDs find and maintain employment? What do States need to build or strengthen their capacity, investment, and expertise in working with this population?
(b) What is the appropriate role of States in assessing ABAWDs for barriers to employment, job skills, and career interests in order identify appropriate opportunities for fulfilling the work requirements? At what point in the process is this most useful? During the interview? After certification?
(c) How can existing resources be leveraged by States to help ABAWDs find and maintain employment? Are there State/local/Federal or other stakeholders that can be leveraged to provide holistic services to ABAWDs?
(d) Are there evidence-based activities that States could offer through their SNAP E&T programs that would help reduce barriers to employment among ABAWDs? What kinds of support services, job-retention services and other activities would increase success of ABAWDs moving into gainful employment?
(e) Are there additional ways that States could incentivize employers to provide jobs to ABAWDs?
(f) Should ABAWDs be subject to additional reporting requirements or be limited to a specific type of reporting system (
(g) What approaches have States found effective in communicating with ABAWDs to educate them on the
3. The accurate determination of whether an individual is physically or mentally unfit for employment is fundamental to applying the time limit to the proper individuals, and exempting others, consistent with the Act. In addition, it allows States to focus work strategies on those individuals who are truly capable of benefiting from them.
(a) What is the appropriate scope of conditions and indicators of physical or mental unfitness for employment under current statutory authority, particularly in State determinations of whether an individual is obviously physically or mentally unfit for employment? What level of State flexibility is appropriate in this area? Why?
(b) How do current certification processes (use of technology, lack of face-to-face interaction) affect the ability to determine exceptions or exemptions to the ABAWD time limit? How can these processes be modified or enhanced to best support these determinations, while providing any needed reasonable accommodations for individuals?
(c) Who should determine whether a participant is fit to work? What technical and information resources, or other resources, would best support States to better screen for unfitness for employment and other exceptions to the ABAWD time limit? What performance and/or accountability measures would support this process?
(d) How can the Department/States better engage and serve individuals determined to be unfit for employment? How can State agencies provide these individuals with services or opportunities that may increase their fitness for work?
(e) What are best practices for the use of 15 percent exemptions in supporting the appropriate application of ABAWD requirements?
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This action has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has assessed the impact of this ANPRM on Indian tribes and determined that this ANPRM does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of comment period extension.
The Department of Energy (DOE) published, on November 28, 2017, a Request for Information (RFI) seeking comments from interested parties to assist DOE in evaluating the potential advantages and disadvantages of additional flexibilities in the U.S. Appliance and Equipment Energy Conservations Standards (ECS) program. The comment period for the RFI ends on February 26, 2018. Through this notice, DOE extends the comment period until March 26, 2018.
The comment period for the RFI published in the
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The docket web page can be found at
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program Staff, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. Email:
The Department of Energy (DOE) published a Request for Information (RFI) on November 28, 2017 (82 FR 56181) requesting feedback on the design, value, and solutions to potential challenges of revising the U.S. Appliance and Equipment Energy Conservation Standards (ECS) program to include additional compliance flexibilities, with the goal of reducing compliance costs, enhancing consumer choice and maintaining or increasing energy savings. The comment period for the RFI was previously February 26, 2018. In a letter dated February 9, 2018, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) requested that the comment period for the RFI be extended to March 9, 2018, to allow more time for member companies to submit information to EEI. (EERE-2017-BT-STD-0059-0015) DOE also received a letter dated February 13, 2018, from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) requesting that the comment period be extended until March 26, 2018, to allow more time for their members to submit information to AHRI. (EERE-2017-BT-STD-0059-0016) DOE grants these requests and extends the comment period until March 26, 2018.
The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this document.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of failures of the inner fixed structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser (TR). This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal, and applicable on-condition actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 9, 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 NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA; phone: 206-231-3553; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report of IFS forward upper fire seal failures and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the TR. Investigation revealed that the root cause of the failures is a scrubbing and pinching condition at the upper end cap of the IFS forward upper fire seal during TR closing. The failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal causes the loss of seal pressurization, which then allows fan bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could degrade the ability to detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an uncontrolled fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket, resulting in thermal damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent release of engine exhaust components, and consequent damage to the critical areas of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal and applicable on-condition actions. 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 are proposing 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 proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017, addresses only Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines (excluding the Rolls Royce Trent 1000-TEN engine, which was recently certified). IFS forward upper fire seals having part number (P/N) 725Z3171-127 or P/N 725Z3171-128 can be installed on all Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines, including the recently certified Rolls Royce Trent 1000-TEN engine. To prevent the installation of a TR with an unsafe fire seal on a Model 787 airplane, this proposed AD would apply to all Model 787 series airplanes (including future Model 787-10) powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines (including the Rolls Royce Trent 1000-TEN engine).
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition 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 proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:
(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 9, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes, certificated in any category, powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust System.
This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the inner fixed structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser (TR). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal, which causes the loss of seal pressurization and allows fan bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could degrade the ability to detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an uncontrolled fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket, resulting in thermal damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent release of engine exhaust components, and consequent damage to critical areas of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Model 787-8 and 787-9 series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017 (“BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001”): Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001.
For Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines, as of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a thrust reverser with an IFS forward upper fire seal having part number (P/N) 725Z3171-127 or P/N 725Z3171-128.
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA; phone: 206-231-3553; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission proposes to adopt a more accurate title of Withdrawal of pleadings (Rule 216), for Rule 216 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission also proposes to clarify the text of the Rule.
Comments are due March 26, 2018.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
Vince Mareino, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6167,
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission proposes to clarify the title and text of Rule 216 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.216. The Commission proposes to adopt a more accurate title of “Withdrawal of pleadings (Rule 216).” The Commission also proposes to clarify the text of the Rule.
2. The Commission proposes two changes to Rule 216. First, the current title may confuse some readers by implying that Rule 216 governs the withdrawal of tariff or rate filings, which are instead governed by separate
3. Second, the Commission proposes changing the first sentence of Rule 216(a) to read, “Any person may seek to withdraw its pleading by filing a notice of withdrawal.” This change clarifies that it is the person who has submitted a pleading that may withdraw that pleading. The Commission also proposes a conforming change, to refer to “person” rather than “party,” in Rule 216(c).
4. Review by the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, is not required since this NOPR does not contain new or modified information collection or recordkeeping requirements.
5. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
6. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
7. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 26, 2018. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM18-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
8. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
9. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
10. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
11. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
12. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
13. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
Electric power rates, Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 385, Chapter I, Title 18,
5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (1990); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (2015).
(a)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Whenever a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated, the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the standard, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting infrastructure requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0056, at
Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-6357; email address:
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO
On December 27, 2013, Oregon made an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 NO
As part of this action we are also addressing a SIP revision submitted by Oregon on July 18, 2017. The July 18, 2017, submission updated an Oregon rule to account for a change to the federal ozone standard. We note that this update to the ozone standard in the Oregon SIP is not relevant to our infrastructure action on the 2010 NO
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The requirements, with corresponding CAA subsections, are listed below:
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the applicable requirements of part D.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
The EPA's 2013 Guidance restated our interpretation that two elements are not governed by the three-year submission deadline in CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are due on separate schedules, pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various pollutant-specific subparts 2 through 5 of part D. These are submissions required by: (i) CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). As a result, this action does not address CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). The EPA has also determined that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility is not triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.
We are proposing to approve Oregon's December 23, 2013, and October 20, 2015, submissions for certain infrastructure requirements. Our most recent action on an Oregon infrastructure submission was published on June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35693). In the preamble of the proposal for that action, we published a discussion of the EPA's overall approach to review of these types of submissions. Please see our April 17, 2014, proposed rule for this discussion (79 FR 21679, at page 21680).
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.
Oregon has no areas designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO
Oregon's SIP-approved NSR program is administered through Division 216
In addition to permitting provisions, Oregon's SIP contains numerous rules that limit NO
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to the EPA upon request.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2010 NO
Oregon's federally enforceable state operating permit program, at Division 216
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) addresses four separate elements, or “prongs.” CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (prong 1), and adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state (prong 2). CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires state SIPs to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent significant
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) states SIPs must include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). CAA section 126 requires notification to neighboring states of potential impacts from a new or modified major stationary source, and specifies how a state may petition the EPA when a major source or group of stationary sources in a state is thought to contribute to certain pollution problems in another state. CAA section 115 governs the process for addressing air pollutants emitted in the United States that cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country.
The EPA believes, as noted in the 2013 Guidance, where a state's regional haze plan has been approved as meeting all current obligations, a state may rely upon those provisions in support of its demonstration that it satisfies CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to visibility (prong 4). On July 5, 2011, the EPA approved portions of the Oregon regional haze plan, including the requirements for best available retrofit technology (76 FR 38997). We approved the remaining elements of the Oregon regional haze plan on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50611). Because we approved the Oregon plan as meeting regional haze requirements, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 visibility requirements with respect to the 2010 NO
The Division 209 public notice provisions in Oregon's SIP-approved NSR program require that for major NSR permit actions, Oregon must provide notice to neighboring states, among other officials and agencies. This notice requirement is consistent with CAA section 126(a). In addition, Oregon has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 NO
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the state board provisions under CAA section 128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
Turning to sub-element (E)(ii), the submissions cite OAR 340-200-0100
With respect to sub-element (E)(iii), the submissions cite ORS 468.020
We are proposing to find that Oregon has provided necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
Oregon submits emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. Oregon submits a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and reports emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. Oregon reports emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and also voluntarily reports emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the website
Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 NO
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
We recently approved revisions to the Oregon air pollution emergency rules at OAR 340-206
CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of a state plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining the standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and federal land managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to CAA section 121. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.
In practice, the ODEQ routinely coordinates with local governments, states, federal land managers and other stakeholders on air quality issues including transportation conformity and regional haze, and provides notice to appropriate agencies related to permitting actions. Oregon participates in regional planning processes including the Western Regional Air Partnership, which is a voluntary partnership of states, tribes, federal land managers, local air agencies and the EPA, whose purpose is to understand current and evolving regional air quality issues in the West. Based on the provisions above, we are proposing to find that the Oregon SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials for the 2010 NO
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if ambient air quality standards are exceeded in an area. States must advise the public of the health hazards associated with air pollution and what can be done to prevent exceedances. The EPA calculates an air quality index for five major air pollutants regulated by the CAA: Ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. This air quality index (AQI) provides daily information to the public on air quality. Oregon actively participates and submits information to the EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs which provide information to the public on local air quality. Oregon also provides the AQI to the public at
Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA, we have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and permitting. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Oregon's PSD program on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122), updating the program for current federal requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to PSD for the 2010 NO
With respect to visibility protection under element (J), the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 NO
CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the performance of air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) directs SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
Oregon submitted several rule revisions in the December 27, 2013, and October 20, 2015, SIP submissions. However, most of these rule revisions were superseded by rule changes submitted on April 22, 2015 and approved on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122).
As part of this action we are also proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by Oregon on July 18, 2017. The July 18, 2017, submission updated Oregon rules to account for changes to the federal ozone standard. Specifically, Oregon revised OAR 340-202-0090
With respect to each of the submissions, we are taking no action on OAR 340-200-0040
The EPA is proposing to approve Oregon's December 27, 2013 and October 20, 2015, SIP submissions as meeting specific infrastructure requirements of the CAA. We propose to find that the Oregon SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010 NO
We are proposing to approve, and incorporate by reference at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, the following rule sections submitted October 20, 2015 (state effective October 16, 2015): OAR 340-202-0060
In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section VI. Proposed Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues a proposed rule that would modify regulations governing the Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. This proposed rule includes three actions. The first action would allow Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups to lease (to receive by transfer) halibut individual fishing quota (IFQ) in IFQ regulatory areas 4B, 4C, and 4D in years of extremely low halibut commercial catch limits. This proposed action is necessary to provide additional harvest opportunities to CDQ groups and community residents, and provide IFQ holders with the opportunity to receive value for their IFQ when the halibut commercial catch limits may not be large enough to provide for an economically viable fishery for IFQ holders. The second action would remove an obsolete reference in the IFQ Program regulations. The third action would clarify IFQ vessel use cap regulations. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, and other applicable laws.
Submit comments on or before March 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0072, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as the “Analysis”) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed rule may be obtained from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address; by email to
Stephanie Warpinski, 907-586-7228.
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut through regulations established under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations governing the halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). NMFS publishes the IPHC's regulations as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) and (b), provides the Secretary with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and the Halibut Act. The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c), also provides the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) with authority to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary.
The Council developed the Individual Fishing Quota Program (IFQ Program) for the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries. The IFQ Program for the halibut fishery is implemented by Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 under the authority of the section 773 of the Halibut Act. The IFQ Program for the sablefish fishery is implemented by the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 under the authority of section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The IFQ Program for the management of the fixed gear (hook-and-line and pot gear) halibut and sablefish fisheries off Alaska was implemented by NMFS in 1995 (58 FR 59375; November 9, 1993). The Council and NMFS designed the IFQ Program to allocate harvest privileges among participants in the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries to reduce fishing capacity that had led to an unsafe “race for fish” as vessels raced to harvest their annual catch limits as quickly as possible before the annual limit was reached. A central objective of the IFQ Program is to support the social and economic character of the fisheries and the coastal fishing communities where many of these fisheries are based.
Under the IFQ Program, access to the fixed gear sablefish and halibut fisheries is limited to those persons holding quota share (QS). NMFS issued separate QS for sablefish and halibut to qualified applicants based on their historical participation during a set of qualifying years in the sablefish and halibut fisheries. QS is an exclusive, revocable privilege that allows the holder to harvest a specific percentage of either the total allowable catch (TAC) in the sablefish fishery or the annual commercial catch limit in the halibut fishery. In addition to being specific to sablefish or halibut, QS is designated for specific geographic areas of harvest, a specific vessel operation type (catcher vessel or catcher/processor), and for a specific range of vessel sizes that may be used to harvest the sablefish or halibut (vessel category). There are four vessel categories of halibut QS: Category A shares are designated for catcher/processors, vessels that process their catch at sea (
NMFS annually issues IFQ permits to each QS holder. An annual IFQ permit authorizes the permit holder to harvest a specified amount of the IFQ species in a regulatory area from a specific operation type and vessel category. IFQ is expressed in pounds and is based on the amount of QS held in relation to the total QS pool for each regulatory area with an assigned catch limit.
In addition to ending the race for fish, other goals of the IFQ Program are to prevent absentee ownership of QS and promote an owner-operator fleet. To meet these goals, the IFQ Program includes restrictions on the ability of QS holders to transfer their annual IFQ. The Council and NMFS recognized that at the time the IFQ Program was implemented, some QS holders had long-standing business arrangements with hired masters who harvested IFQ on behalf of the QS holder. Therefore, the IFQ Program authorizes the use of hired masters in certain instances. Since the implementation of the IFQ Program, the Council has recommended and NMFS has approved further regulatory amendments to limit the ability of QS holders to designate a hired master to discourage absentee ownership and move towards an owner-operated program (see Section 3.8.3.1 of the Analysis).
The IFQ Program allows limited transfers of IFQ under specific conditions, including temporary medical transfers, survivorship transfer privileges, temporary military transfers, transfers through the Community Quota Entity Program, and transfers to the guided angler fish program. When these specific conditions are met, regulations allow a QS holder to designate a hired master to land the resulting IFQ derived from that holder's QS (see 50 CFR 679.41).
The Council and the public frequently use the terms “IFQ lease” or “lease” to refer to the transfer of IFQ without a transfer of the underlying QS. However, NMFS does not generally use the term “lease” in its IFQ Program regulations governing the transfer of IFQ. For consistency with the terminology used in the existing regulations and for clarity, this proposed rule uses the term “transfer of IFQ”.
As described above, the halibut fishery is managed in separate geographic areas of harvest, as determined by the IPHC. Accordingly, NMFS issues halibut IFQ consistent with the IPHC's regulatory areas. NMFS's IFQ regulatory areas are described in Figure 15 to part 679. This proposed rule uses the term “Area” to
The commercial catch limits for Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D are allocated between two distinct management programs, the CDQ Program and the IFQ Program. Throughout the duration of the IFQ Program, the Area 4E commercial catch limit has been exclusively allocated to the CDQ Program; therefore, no Area 4E QS or IFQ is allocated.
Overall, the halibut IFQ commercial catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE have trended downward over the past 15 years (see Section 3.6.1 of the Analysis). The Area 4B commercial catch limit has dropped substantially from 2001 to 2007 (about 3.9 million pounds in 2001 to about 1.1 million pounds in 2007). Although there was a slight increasing trend between 2008 and 2011, the commercial catch limit for IFQ trended downward again from 2012 to 2015. In 2015, the Area 4B commercial catch limit for IFQ (about 0.9 million pounds) was less than a quarter of what it was in 2001. The combined commercial catch limit for IFQ in Areas 4C and 4D has seen more fluctuation during this period, but has still experienced an overall downward trend since 2007. In 2007, the combined commercial catch limit for IFQ in Areas 4C and 4D was about 2.2 million pounds; in 2015, it was about 0.7 million pounds.
The CDQ Program was implemented in 1992, and in 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended to include provisions specific to the CDQ Program. The purpose of the CDQ Program is: (1) To provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI); (2) to support economic development in western Alaska; (3) to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska; and (4) to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(A)).
The CDQ Program consists of six different non-profit managing organizations (CDQ groups) representing different geographical regions in Alaska: Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA), Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA), Coastal Villages Region Fund (CVRF), Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC), and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA). The CDQ Program receives annual allocations of TAC for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries, which are in turn allocated among the CDQ groups. CDQ groups use their allocations of halibut to provide opportunities for small vessel fishing by residents of their member communities.
Among the species CDQ groups are allocated for commercial fishing, Pacific halibut is an important species for community resident employment and income. NMFS allocates halibut to CDQ groups for commercial fisheries in four Areas: 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E (see Section 3.5.1 of the Analysis). Allocations of halibut CDQ are correlated with the geographic area in which a CDQ group's member communities are located. For example, 30 percent of the halibut commercial catch limit in Area 4B is allocated to the CDQ Program. The entire allocation to the CDQ Program in Area 4B is provided to APICDA, which represents all of the CDQ communities located within the geographic range of Area 4B. Area 4C surrounds the Pribilof Islands, and the portion of the halibut commercial catch limit allocated to the CDQ program is split between CBSFA (which represents the CDQ community of St. Paul) and APICDA (which represents the CDQ community of St. George). The CDQ allocation in Area 4D is split among BBEDC, NSEDC, and YDFDA. The CDQ allocation in Area 4E is split between BBEDC and CVRF. A CDQ group may transfer its halibut CDQ to another CDQ group that has halibut CDQ allocation in the same regulatory area (50 CFR 679.31(c)).
The Council recommended and NMFS approved amendments to the IFQ Program to allow CDQ Program participants to harvest allocations of Area 4D halibut CDQ in Area 4E. This provision allows residents in CDQ communities along the Western Alaska coast to have more near-shore opportunities to harvest their group's halibut CDQ (68 FR 9902, March 3, 2003). Additionally, the Council recommended and NMFS approved amendments to the IFQ Program to allow for the harvest of Area 4C halibut IFQ and CDQ in Area 4D in response to reports of localized depletion, decreasing catch per unit effort, and resultant limitations on the optimal utilization of Area 4C halibut IFQ and CDQ (70 FR 43328, July 27, 2005). See Section 3.5.2 of the Analysis for additional detail on the history of the halibut CDQ fishery.
The resident halibut CDQ fleets and criteria for participation in CDQ fisheries vary among the CDQ groups. Resource use is impacted by factors such as the number of interested and qualified residents, the location of the halibut resource relative to nearshore fishing grounds, other fishing opportunities (such as salmon and crab), other employment opportunities, and the availability of processing operations. Also, the resident halibut CDQ fleet is impacted by internal economic decisions made by the CDQ groups and in the ways the CDQ groups choose to promote economic development in their communities. In general, many of the small boat fishermen in CDQ communities are dependent on the halibut fishery (Section 3.5.3 of the Analysis).
The downward trend of halibut commercial catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE over the past 15 years has been dramatic, with current limits significantly lower than in the recent past years. The recent years of low halibut abundance and the resulting low commercial catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE have made it increasingly difficult for most CDQ groups to create a viable commercial halibut fishing opportunity for their community residents. The halibut resource is economically significant for small vessel fishing operations as well as culturally and socially important for residents of Western Alaska CDQ communities. Correspondingly, low halibut abundance and the resulting low commercial catch limits in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D have made it increasingly difficult for IFQ holders to have an economically viable fishery.
Under current regulations, CDQ groups cannot receive by transfer any IFQ derived from catcher vessel QS. Current regulations also prohibit halibut QS holders from transferring their IFQ separate from the underlying QS except in very narrow, specific situations, such as temporary military transfers (see Section 3.7 of the Analysis for more information). These restrictions limit the options for CDQ groups to temporarily expand opportunities for halibut fishing by community residents in times of low halibut abundance (see Section 3.7 of the Analysis).
To address these problems, this proposed rule would create a voluntary
This proposed rule includes three actions. The primary action, Action 1, would create a voluntary option for an IFQ holder to temporarily transfer his or her halibut IFQ to a CDQ group in years of extremely low halibut abundance. Actions 2 and 3 would make minor regulatory adjustments to remove an obsolete reference in the IFQ Program regulations and to clarify IFQ vessel use cap regulations, respectively. The following paragraphs provide additional detail on the proposed actions.
This proposed rule would: (1) Define the halibut commercial catch limits under which CDQ groups could receive IFQ by transfer; (2) establish limits on the types and amounts of IFQ that can be transferred; and (3) establish reporting requirements for CDQ groups receiving IFQ by transfer. This proposed rule would not convert transferred IFQ to CDQ. Allocations of halibut CDQ would not change under this proposed rule.
Under this proposed rule, CDQ groups would be able to receive transfers of halibut catcher vessel IFQ (Categories B, C, and D IFQ) in Areas 4C and 4D when the IPHC approves a halibut commercial catch limit that is less than 1.5 million pounds in Areas 4CDE. CDQ groups would be able to receive transfers of halibut catcher vessel IFQ (Categories B, C, and D IFQ) in Area 4B when the IPHC approves a halibut commercial catch limit that is less than 1 million pounds in Area 4B. IFQ holders would be able to transfer both blocked and unblocked IFQ to CDQ groups. This proposed rule would not revise current regulations that authorize an IFQ holder in Areas 4B, 4C and 4D to transfer his or her Category A halibut IFQ to any qualified person, including a CDQ group. This proposed rule would provide additional harvesting flexibility for Category A halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group in years of extremely low halibut abundance, as described in more detail below.
The Council recommended these thresholds based on an analysis of commercial catch limits between 2008 and 2017, a period of time representing a range of different halibut commercial catch limits and decreasing opportunities for CDQ community fishermen. The Council considered a range of different commercial catch limit thresholds for both Area 4B and Areas 4CDE, before selecting these thresholds. Section 3.8.5 of the Analysis shows that from 2008 to 2016, the halibut commercial catch limit in Area 4B was never below the proposed threshold of 1 million pounds. However, in Areas 4CDE, the halibut commercial catch limit was below the proposed threshold of 1.5 million pounds in 2 years, 2014 and 2015. Therefore, under halibut abundance conditions over the last 8 years, had this proposed rule been in effect it would have allowed IFQ transfers to CDQ groups to occur in only 2 years, and only in Areas 4CDE.
In selecting these thresholds, the Council sought to balance the goal of providing additional halibut fishing opportunities for CDQ residents when the halibut CDQ allocation alone may not be large enough to sustain small vessel resident fisheries, with the need to avoid potential adverse distributional impacts on other halibut IFQ users that could result if IFQ transfers were permitted. The Council also indicated that the flexibility to transfer halibut IFQ in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D was to be available only during worst case scenarios for halibut commercial catch limits in these Areas (Section 2.3 of the Analysis). For Areas 4CDE, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that a halibut commercial catch limit below 1.5 million pounds, as was experienced in 2014 and 2015, reflects a worst case scenario for Areas 4CDE as it represents an extremely low commercial catch limit for these Areas. For Area 4B, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that a halibut commercial catch limit below 1 million pounds, which has not been experienced during the last 10 years, reflects a worst case scenario for Area 4B as it represents an extremely low commercial catch limit for this Area. The Council selected a lower threshold for Area 4B due to concerns expressed by the public about potentially adverse distributional impacts on the community of Adak with a threshold that was higher than 1 million pounds.
This proposed rule would establish several limits on the catcher vessel IFQ that can be transferred as well as some flexibility with transferred catcher vessel and catcher/processor IFQ. This proposed rule includes five limits: (1) A CDQ group would only be able to receive catcher vessel IFQ by transfer for an Area in which it also holds halibut CDQ; (2) no vessel greater than 51 feet in length overall (LOA) could be used to harvest catcher vessel IFQ transferred to a CDQ group; (3) catcher vessel IFQ resulting from QS acquired after December 14, 2015 could not be transferred to a CDQ group until 3 years after the QS was acquired (
The first limit would prevent a CDQ group from receiving catcher vessel halibut IFQ by transfer for an Area in which that CDQ group does not hold halibut CDQ. The Council recommended this provision so that any catcher vessel IFQ transferred to a CDQ group would be available for use in conjunction with halibut CDQ that is issued to a CDQ group. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that coupling catcher vessel IFQ received by transfer to areas in which a CDQ group hold halibut CDQ would ensure that the benefits of the IFQ transfer manifest with the intended recipients—the resident halibut fleet in the CDQ group's communities adjacent to the Area. For example, if a CDQ group is issued halibut CDQ in Areas 4B and 4C, that CDQ group could only receive catcher vessel Area 4B and Area 4C IFQ by transfer. Additionally, under this proposed rule at § 679.42(a)(iii) and (iv), CDQ groups that are eligible to receive a transfer of Area 4D catcher vessel IFQ would be able to harvest that IFQ, and any Category A IFQ it holds, in Area 4E (Section 3.5.2 of the Analysis). The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this additional flexibility would improve the effectiveness of the proposed action by enabling transferred IFQ to be fished closer to shore so that smaller vessels typically used by residents in CDQ communities can more easily participate in halibut fisheries. This proposed flexibility also would be consistent with section 11(8) of the IPHC annual management measures, which allows Area 4D halibut CDQ to be harvested in Area 4E. However, the IPHC would need to revise its annual management measures to extend this harvesting flexibility to catcher vessel and catcher/processor IFQ held by a
The second limit would prohibit the use of vessels greater than 51 feet LOA to harvest catcher vessel IFQ that is transferred to a CDQ group. The Council recommended this vessel size limit because this is the largest size vessel owned by CDQ community residents that has landed halibut CDQ during the past 10 years, 2008 through 2017 (Section 3.5.3 of the Analysis). Because this proposed rule is intended to provide additional harvest opportunities to CDQ community residents, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that allowing larger than 51 feel LOA to harvest transferred catcher vessel IFQ would be inconsistent with this objective. Current regulations provide sufficient flexibility to allow IFQ that could be transferred to a CDQ group under this proposed rule to be fished on a vessel of any length up to 51 feet LOA (see Section 2.4 of the Analysis).
This proposed rule would also clarify that any Area 4D Category A IFQ that is held by a CDQ group or transferred to a CDQ group may be fished in Area 4E by vessels less than or equal to 51 feet LOA when the commercial catch limit threshold in Area 4CDE is triggered. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that this provision would provide additional harvest opportunities for CDQ residents. The 51-foot LOA restriction would help ensure additional harvest opportunities would be provided on the size class of vessels used by CDQ community residents (see Section 3.8.6 in the Analysis for additional detail). This proposed rule would not revise current regulations that authorize Category A IFQ for Areas 4B, 4C, or 4D to be fished in the corresponding Area on a vessel of any length.
Under the third limit, IFQ resulting from QS acquired after December 14, 2015 could not be transferred to a CDQ group until 3 years after the QS was acquired. This provision would effectively create a “cooling off” period. For example, if a person acquired Area 4C halibut QS on March 15, 2016, that holder would not be eligible to transfer the IFQ from that QS to a CDQ group until March 14, 2019. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that the proposed cooling off period is necessary to reduce the incentive to QS holders to acquire QS with the intention of transferring the resulting IFQ to CDQ groups rather than fishing the IFQ. Section 3.8.7 of the Analysis notes that the Council considered a range of cooling off periods from 3 to 5 years. In selecting the proposed cooling off period, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that a 3-year period would balance the objectives of reducing the incentives for QS holders to acquire QS with the intention of transferring it to CDQ groups with the need to provide an adequate market for CDQ groups to receive IFQ by transfer. The Council also recommended that QS acquired after December 14, 2015, be subject to the cooling off period. The Council selected the December 14, 2015, date because that is the date when the Council first added the option of a cooling off period to the suite of alternatives and options under consideration for the proposed action. NMFS agrees that this proposed date is reasonable as it would deter speculative investment in anticipation of this proposed rule, and selection of this proposed date, versus the effective date of this action if approved, accelerates the time when QS acquired after December 14, 2015, would be eligible for transfer.
The fourth limit would prohibit an IFQ holder from transferring catcher vessel halibut IFQ for a specific IFQ regulatory area to a CDQ group for more than 2 consecutive years. This 2-year limit would apply to calendar years and would not apply only to years in which the commercial catch limit is below the threshold. Additionally, this limit would apply to the transfer of any halibut IFQ for a specific Area. If an IFQ holder chooses to transfer some but not all of his or her IFQ for a particular Area during a year when the annual commercial catch limit for that Area set below the proposed threshold that transfer would count towards the 2-year limit. Transfers of IFQ for one Area would not affect the ability to transfer IFQ for another Area. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that limitations on how many consecutive years an IFQ holder could transfer IFQ to a CDQ group would limit the potential for a specific IFQ holder to continuously transfer IFQ to CDQ groups rather than fishing that IFQ or transferring the underlying QS to other new entrants in the fishery. Section 3.8.8 of the Analysis explains that the Council considered a range of limitations on the number of years that IFQ could be transferred (
Under the fifth limit, only catcher vessel QS holders that hold less than 76,355 QS units specified for Area 4B would be allowed to transfer their catcher vessel IFQ to CDQ groups. NMFS would consider all categories of Area 4B QS holdings regardless of blocked or unblocked status. This amount of QS units yielded approximately 7,500 pounds of halibut IFQ in 2016. The Council recommended and NMFS proposes this limitation to ensure that persons holding larger amounts of QS units continue to be active fishermen in the Area 4B halibut fishery while providing an opportunity for persons holding smaller amounts of QS units to transfer catcher vessel IFQ to CDQ groups if the 1 million pound commercial catch limit threshold to allow IFQ transfers is met. The Council recommended and NMFS is proposing this limitation only for Area 4B to accommodate the specific nature of IFQ operations in the remote Aleutian Island communities in Area 4B, and after considering a range of different limits (from 2,000 to 7,500 pounds of halibut IFQ, with the preferred option to convert 7,500 pounds to 2016 QS units) that are described in Section 3.8.9 of the Analysis.
The Council received public testimony indicating that Aleutian Islands communities in Area 4B receive substantial benefits from fishery participation by persons holding relatively large amounts of halibut QS and IFQ in that area. The testifiers expressed concern that allowing these QS holders to transfer IFQ to a CDQ group could substantially reduce these benefits to the communities in years of extremely low commercial catch limits. In addition, persons holding less than 76,355 QS units would be allocated relatively small amounts of IFQ that may not be economically feasible to harvest in years of extremely low commercial halibut catch limits. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that limiting eligibility to transfer IFQ to holders of less than 76,355 QS units in Area 4B would allow the holders of these relatively small amounts of QS to lease the resulting IFQ in years of extremely low commercial halibut catch limits while maintaining the benefits of the fishery to the Aleutian Island communities from harvests of the larger holdings of IFQ.
This proposed rule also establishes a reporting requirement for CDQ groups that receive IFQ by transfer. The proposed report would be required only for those years in which CDQ groups received IFQ by transfer. CDQ groups
In recommending this proposed rule, the Council stated its intent for catcher vessel IFQ transferred to a CDQ group to be fished by residents of that CDQ community but did not recommend that NMFS establish this requirement in regulation. Section 2.3 of the Analysis describes that CDQ groups have different methods of defining residents in their communities and different techniques for determining who will harvest their halibut CDQ. After considering this information, the Council specified that it did not intend for NMFS to establish a regulatory definition for CDQ community resident, nor did it intend for NMFS to verify that CDQ community residents were receiving the benefits of transferred IFQ under this proposed rule. The Council recommended that NMFS implement the requirement for CDQ groups to report the persons who harvest the IFQ received by transfer. This would allow the Council and the public to monitor the use of IFQ transferred to CDQ groups and provide the Council with information to determine whether the use of transferred IFQ is consistent with its intent for the action.
The Council recommended and NMFS proposes a reporting requirement to understand the criteria that a CDQ group uses to receive transfers of IFQ and provide harvest opportunities. This information could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of this proposed rule to provide benefits to members of CDQ communities. This proposed rule would require the report to be submitted to NMFS no later than January 31 of the year after the IFQ was transferred to the CDQ group. NMFS proposes this deadline to be consistent with other reports required under the IFQ Program, and to ensure that NMFS has received the report prior to the issuance of IFQ that typically occurs in mid-February. If a CDQ group is required to submit a report and does not do so by the deadline, the CDQ group would be ineligible to receive transfers of catcher vessel IFQ until the report is submitted.
Under this proposed rule, a CDQ group that wished to receive halibut IFQ by transfer would make an arrangement with an IFQ holder to transfer his or her IFQ. The CDQ group would need to complete an Application for Temporary Transfer of Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and submit the application to NMFS for approval. Once approved, NMFS would issue the CDQ group an IFQ permit with the pounds of halibut IFQ that would be available to be fished. After determining who would fish the halibut IFQ, the CDQ group with the IFQ permit would then need to apply for a hired master permit for the vessel operator designated to fish the halibut IFQ. Current regulations authorize a vessel operator to harvest halibut IFQ and CDQ on the same fishing trip and a vessel operator harvesting both halibut CDQ and IFQ transferred to a CDQ group would need to carry (1) a halibut CDQ permit, (2) a CDQ hired master permit, (3) a copy of the IFQ permit of the CDQ group, and (4) an IFQ hired master permit. Additionally, any vessels fishing halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group would be subject to the current IFQ vessel use caps under § 679.42(h)(1). If a vessel harvested both halibut IFQ and CDQ, only the halibut IFQ would accrue towards and be subject to the vessel use cap.
Halibut that is landed by a vessel operator harvesting CDQ and IFQ would be debited off two separate catch limits. Therefore, for purposes of catch accounting, participants would need to track what amount of halibut harvest is associated with the group's CDQ and what amount is associated with the IFQ permit held by the CDQ group. This distinction would be recorded on the fish ticket (Section 3.8.11.3 of the Analysis). If this proposed rule is approved, NMFS would need to make changes to the database that monitors transfers of IFQ between permit holders and that is used to issue hired master permits to allow for this new type of transfer (see Section 3.8.11.4 of the Analysis).
Under this proposed rule, CDQ groups would be responsible for cost recovery fees based on the IFQ pounds held on the IFQ permit. Section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act obligates NMFS to recover the actual costs of management, data collection, and enforcement (direct program cost) of the IFQ fisheries. Therefore, NMFS implemented a cost recovery fee program for the IFQ fisheries in 2000 (65 FR 14919, March 20, 2000). While costs specific to the CDQ Program for halibut are recoverable through a separate cost recovery program (81 FR 150, January 5, 2016), this proposed rule would require regulatory changes to the IFQ transfer and hired master use provisions and therefore constitute changes in management of the IFQ Program. CDQ group participants receiving IFQ transfers would be required to pay an IFQ cost recovery fee as a portion of the ex-vessel value of their landed halibut.
Section 7(2) of the IPHC annual management measures (82 FR 12730, March 7, 2017) authorizes a vessel operator harvesting halibut CDQ in Areas 4D or 4E to retain halibut that are smaller than the size limit established by the IPHC for personal use. Under the status quo, a vessel operator harvesting halibut IFQ held by a CDQ group along with halibut CDQ may retain halibut less than legal size for personal use. Therefore, if this proposed action is approved, vessel operators harvesting both halibut CDQ and halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group in Areas 4D or 4E would be authorized to retain halibut smaller than the size limit established by the IPHC in length for personal use as specified in section 7 of the IPHC annual management measures. The personal use allotment would apply to all halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group under this exemption. Section 7(3) of the IPHC annual management measures requires a CDQ group to report on all retained halibut for personal use that are less than legal size and harvested on behalf of a CDQ group.
This proposed rule would modify the definition of “annual commercial catch limit” at 50 CFR 300.61 to include definitions for Areas 3B and 4A, and for Areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E.
This proposed rule would modify § 679.41 to allow transfer of halibut IFQ in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D in years of low halibut catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE to CDQ groups along with the specific conditions under which this transfer activity could occur.
Additionally, a reporting requirement would be added at § 679.5(l)(10) to require a CDQ group to submit a report on the criteria it used to select IFQ holders from whom IFQ transfers would be received, the criteria it used to determine the persons who can harvest transferred IFQ, and the amount and type of IFQ transferred.
This proposed rule also includes a provision which would be added under § 679.42 to allow Area 4D IFQ that is transferred to a CDQ group to be harvested in Area 4E.
Finally, NMFS is proposing to add and reserve several paragraphs in this proposed rule to account for another rulemaking that proposes to modify the same sections of Part 679 that would be modified by this proposed rule.
The effects of Action 1 would depend on first the halibut resource falling
The benefits that could be derived from this proposed rule are different among CDQ groups and would likely even be distributional within a group. Overall, this action would not necessarily be expected to result in a financial gain for a CDQ group that chooses to receive halibut IFQ by transfer. It is likely that some, or all, of the fee an IFQ holder would incur to transfer his or her IFQ would be paid by the CDQ group. This proposed rule could also provide distributional benefits to some processing plants, secondary service providers, and communities as a whole (see Section 3.8 of the Analysis).
Allowing CDQ groups the flexibility to harvest any IFQ received by transfer for Area 4D in Area 4E would add to the existing flexibility CDQ groups have to move their halibut CDQ between IFQ regulatory areas. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that this potential for change in locational fishing intensity from this proposed action would not be a threat to overall stock conservation as long as the Area 4CDE total catch limit is not exceeded, while noting that there is a possibility of localized impacts on fishing opportunities if fishing effort patterns were to change substantially.
Halibut QS holders in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D may also benefit from this proposed rule. These QS holders may feel constrained as their QS is associated with diminishing pounds of IFQ under the relatively low commercial halibut catch limits in recent years. In years of extremely low halibut abundance, it may not be economically viable for some QS holders to harvest their small amounts of IFQ, particularly in remote areas covered by this proposed rule where operating costs are higher relative to other IFQ regulatory areas. Depending on operating costs and catch limits, QS holders that transfer their IFQ to CDQ groups may be able to earn more revenue from transferring their IFQ than from harvesting it themselves or hiring a master to harvest the IFQ (if the QS holder is eligible). As the IFQ Program strictly limits leasing (transfers), this proposed rule would be the only opportunity for many QS holders to transfer their Area 4B, 4C, and 4D halibut IFQ (see Section 3.8.1) in years of extremely low commercial catch limits.
This proposed rule may have adverse indirect effects on some stakeholders of the halibut IFQ fishery (see Section 3.8.2 of the Analysis). This action could prompt some amount of temporary IFQ consolidation, impacting the number of trips taken or resulting in some vessels not being used in the halibut fishery at all in a season. This reduction in participation could result in reduced fishery revenues for affected participants. Consolidation could also result in a displacement of some captain and crew jobs for the duration of time that the halibut catch limits are low enough to allow IFQ transfers. To the extent that they are not the QS holder making the decision to transfer their IFQ to CDQ groups, this proposed rule may also disadvantage vessel owners that use their vessel to harvest halibut IFQ if QS holders who historically fished their IFQ on that vessel choose to lease the IFQ and the vessel owner has reduced revenues from the fishery. Section 3.8.2 of the Analysis notes that it is uncertain how much IFQ may be transferred, from whom, and how this would impact current operations.
As discussed in Section 3.8.1 of the Analysis, transferred IFQ received by a CDQ group and harvested by its community resident fleets would be expected to follow landing patterns similar to the current halibut CDQ operations. However, if the locations of port of origin and landings changes with IFQ received by this transfer provision, there is a potential some communities may not receive revenues from raw fish tax, business landing tax, and other economic activity associated with fishing, such as purchase of food and fuel. These are distributional impacts; therefore, they could represent losses to some communities, while communities with traditional halibut CDQ participation may benefit due to the increased activity from halibut IFQ.
Additionally, this proposed rule may motivate some QS holders who may otherwise consider selling, to hold onto their Areas 4B, 4C, or 4D halibut QS. For those individuals seeking entry into the halibut QS market, the lack of QS movement may not be a positive result. However, to prevent speculative purchases of QS with the intent of using the transfer provision allowed under this proposed rule, this proposed rule includes a cooling off period that limits the transfer of IFQ until 3 years after the QS is acquired. Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D already tend to have the lowest level of QS transactions of any regulatory area (although, this may also be because a portion of the catch limit is designated as CDQ, thus the QS pool is much smaller) and the QS prices, similar to other regulatory areas, appear to be increasing (Section 3.8.4 of the Analysis).
Additionally, this proposed rule would support one of the other goals of the IFQ Program, which is to increase the ability of the rural coastal communities adjacent to the BSAI to share in the wealth generated by the IFQ Program by providing community residents with the opportunity to benefit from fishing for additional halibut IFQ in years of extremely low commercial catch limits (see Section 3.8.3.1 of the Analysis).
This proposed rule would remove an obsolete reference in the regulations at § 679.42(a)(2)(i). Currently, this regulation provides an exception in the wording. However, the paragraph (k) referred to in § 679.42(a)(2)(i) was modified by the final rule to revise regulations governing the use of commercial halibut QS and the processing of non-IFQ species when processed halibut is onboard a vessel (73 FR 8822; February 15, 2008). That final rule removed paragraph (k) and re-designated paragraph (l) as paragraph (k). NMFS inadvertently neglected to remove the cross-reference to paragraph (k) in § 679.42(a)(2)(i). Therefore, with this proposed rule, NMFS proposes removing the cross-reference to paragraph (k) to clarify that persons possessing unused Category B, C, or D halibut QS may be on board a catcher/processor vessel when that vessel is harvesting and processing Category A halibut or sablefish IFQ or is harvesting and processing non-IFQ species. The effects of this action are expected to be minor and beneficial by improving the clarity of the regulations.
This proposed rule would clarify existing regulations pertaining to the IFQ vessel limitations, also referred to as the vessel use caps. NMFS proposes to add language to §
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters which are in addition to, and not in conflict with, IPHC regulations. This proposed rule is consistent with the Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off Alaska. The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) and (b), provides the Secretary of Commerce with the general responsibility to carry out the Convention with the authority to, in consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating, adopt such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act. This proposed rule is consistent with the Halibut Act and other applicable laws.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would revise IFQ Program regulations to authorize CDQ groups to receive halibut IFQ transfers in certain areas when catch limits are below the established thresholds, subject to specific limitations. The directly regulated entities (118 small entities in 2015) are persons that hold Areas 4B, 4C, or 4D halibut QS, CDQ groups, and harvesters, including CDQ community residents, who have traditionally harvested halibut CDQ and may have an opportunity to harvest halibut IFQ received by transfer. Almost all of the directly regulated entities are considered small entities. As described in the Analysis, the 118 directly regulated entities would only be impacted to the extent that they choose to (and are able to) participate in receiving halibut IFQ transfers as a result of the proposed regulatory changes.
Direct impacts would be expected to be positive for both CDQ community resident halibut fishery participants and QS holders that choose to utilize the IFQ transfer provision because the opportunity for this additional flexibility in years of low halibut abundance would be voluntary for both user groups and would only be undertaken if it would benefit the parties to the transfer. Direct impacts would be expected to be positive for CDQ community resident harvesters who have traditionally harvested halibut CDQ and may have an opportunity to harvest additional transfers of halibut IFQ under this proposed rule because it would provide an opportunity to continue to receive economic benefits from fishery participation in times of low abundance. This proposed rule therefore is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities regulated by this proposed rule.
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). NMFS has submitted these requirements to OMB for approval under Control Number 0648-0272 and Control Number 0648-0711. Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 2 hours for Application for Temporary Transfer of Halibut and Sablefish IFQ, 40 hours for the report, and 1 minute for electronic submission of cost recovery fees or 30 minutes for non-electronic fee submission. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
Public comment is sought regarding whether these proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collections of information to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at:
Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
(1) Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A, means the annual commercial allocation minus an area-specific estimate of commercial halibut wastage.
(2) Commission regulatory areas 3B and 4A, means the annual total allowable halibut removals by persons fishing IFQ.
(3) Commission regulatory areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, means the annual total allowable halibut removals by persons fishing IFQ and CDQ.
16 U.S.C. 773
(l) * * *
(9) [Reserved]
(10) A report on annual IFQ regulatory areas 4B, 4C, and 4D Halibut IFQ transfer activities must be submitted to NMFS by a CDQ group as required at § 679.5(w).
(v) [Reserved]
(w)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The annual amount, IFQ regulatory area and vessel category of IFQ regulatory area 4B, 4C, and 4D halibut IFQ transferred to the CDQ group;
(ii) The criteria used to select IFQ holders to transfer IFQ regulatory area 4B, 4C, and 4D halibut IFQ to the CDQ group; and
(iii) The criteria used to determine the person(s) eligible to harvest IFQ regulatory area 4B, 4C, and 4D halibut IFQ received by transfer.
(c) * * *
(12) [Reserved]
(13) If the person applying to receive halibut IFQ assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D in IFQ regulatory areas 4B, 4C, or 4D is a CDQ group, the following determinations are required:
(i) The CDQ group applying to receive halibut IFQ for an IFQ regulatory area receives an annual allocation of halibut CDQ for that IFQ regulatory area pursuant to § 679.31(b)(1);
(ii) The QS holder applying to transfer halibut IFQ to a CDQ group has not transferred any halibut IFQ assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D for that IFQ regulatory area to a CDQ group during the last two consecutive fishing years;
(iii) If the IFQ to be transferred to a CDQ group results from QS that was transferred to the QS holder after December 14, 2015, the QS holder applying to transfer halibut IFQ to a CDQ group has held the underlying QS for that IFQ for a minimum of 3 years from the date NMFS approved the transfer;
(iv) If the IFQ to be transferred to a CDQ group is assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D in IFQ regulatory area 4B, the QS holder applying to transfer that halibut IFQ to a CDQ group holds fewer than 76,355 halibut QS units in IFQ regulatory area 4B; and
(v) The CDQ group applying to receive halibut IFQ has submitted a complete report if required to do so by § 679.5(w).
(d) * * *
(1)
(i) An Application for Eligibility is not required for a CQE if a complete application to become a CQE, as described in paragraph (l)(3) of this section, has been approved by the Regional Administrator on behalf of an eligible community.
(ii) An Application for Eligibility is not required for a CDQ group.
(g) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f), paragraph (g)(2), paragraph (l), paragraph (n) or paragraph (o) of this section, only persons who are IFQ crew members, or who were initially issued QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D, and meet the eligibility requirements in this section, may receive by transfer QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D, or the IFQ resulting from it.
(h) * * *
(2) IFQ resulting from categories B, C, or D QS may not be transferred separately from its originating QS, except as provided in paragraph (d), paragraph (f), paragraph (k), paragraph (l), paragraph (m), or paragraph (o) of this section.
(n) [Reserved]
(o)
(2) A QS holder in IFQ regulatory areas 4C or 4D may transfer halibut IFQ assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D in IFQ regulatory areas 4C or 4D to a CDQ group that receives an allocation of halibut CDQ in that IFQ regulatory area
(3) A QS holder must meet the requirements in paragraph (c)(13) of this section to transfer halibut IFQ assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D in IFQ regulatory areas 4B, 4C, or 4D to a CDQ group.
(4) A CDQ group that receives halibut IFQ by transfer may not transfer that halibut IFQ to any other person.
(a) * * *
(1) The QS or IFQ specified for one IFQ regulatory area must not be used in a different IFQ regulatory area, except for the following:
(i) All or part of the QS and IFQ specified for regulatory area 4C may be harvested in either Area 4C or Area 4D.
(ii) All or part of the halibut CDQ specified for regulatory area 4D may be harvested in either Area 4D or Area 4E.
(iii) If a CDQ group is authorized to receive a transfer of halibut IFQ assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D in IFQ regulatory area 4D as specified in § 679.41(o) of this part, all or part of the halibut IFQ specified for regulatory area 4D that is held by or transferred to a CDQ group may be harvested in either Area 4D or Area 4E.
(2) * * *
(iv) Halibut IFQ assigned to vessel category B, C, or D held by a CDQ group may not be used on a vessel over 51 feet LOA, irrespective of the vessel category assigned to the IFQ.
(h) * * *
(1)
(2)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS is proposing to revise the current closure regulations for commercial shark fisheries. These changes would affect commercial shark fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Proposed revisions include changes to the landings threshold that prompts a closure and the minimum time between filing of the closure with the
Written comments must be received March 26, 2018, NMFS will hold an operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar for this proposed rule on March 2, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. For specific locations, dates and times, see the
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0070, by any of the following methods:
•
•
NMFS will hold one public hearing via conference call on this proposed rule. For specific locations, dates and times, see the
Copies of the supporting documents, including the draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and amendments are available from the HMS website at
Lauren Latchford, Guý DuBeck, Gray Redding, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503 or Delisse Ortiz at 240-681-9037.
Atlantic sharks are directly managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS published in the
A brief summary of the background of this proposed action is provided below. Additional information regarding Atlantic HMS management, specifically the commercial fisheries season structure, can be found in the Draft EA for this proposed action and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its
NMFS initially required Federally-permitted dealers to report to NMFS every two weeks to effectively monitor quotas and close the shark fisheries when necessary to avoid exceeding the quotas. Because these reports were paper-based and had to be mailed, the data NMFS used to monitor the fisheries were often a month or more out of date.
As established in Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 2), the Atlantic shark commercial fisheries season structure is managed with one fishing “season” that lasts the entire calendar year, beginning January 1 and closing on December 31, unless otherwise provided in an inseason action or other rule. NMFS closes a shark fishery when it calculates that the applicable overall, regional, and/or sub-regional landings for the species or management group has reached or is projected to reach 80 percent of the available applicable quota. Once closed, current regulations do not provide for re-opening the fishery.
When the 80-percent landings threshold was established in Amendment 2, all Federal shark dealers reported on a biweekly basis on paper reports. This 80-percent threshold was meant to account for the delay in data entry from the paper reports, landings that occurred during the five-day notice period, state water landings continuing to occur after a Federal closure, delayed landing reports from state only dealers, and the potential for late dealer reporting. However, since January 1, 2013 (77 FR 47303; August 8, 2012), all Atlantic HMS Federal dealers have been required to report commercial harvests of sharks, swordfish, and bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack (BAYS) tunas on a weekly basis through a NMFS-approved electronic dealer reporting system (eDealer). Most states also require all state-registered dealers to report electronically; however, there are some states that still allow for paper reports, and some states require reporting once a month rather than weekly. Overall, electronic dealer reporting has resulted in more timely data on landings.
Current regulations provide that any shark fishery closure is effective no less than five days from notice of filing with the Office of the Federal Register. This minimum notice period was established to allow fishermen to complete their trip and land a portion of the remaining quota. As a result of changes in Amendment 2, however, most shark fishermen now take one or two day trips and may not need the full five-day notice.
Since 2010, NMFS has received numerous comments at several HMS Advisory Panel (AP) meetings and during various rulemakings on commercial shark management requesting that NMFS modify the current 80-percent threshold.
At the September 2017 HMS Advisory Panel Meeting, some Panel members suggested that NMFS consider maintaining the existing 80-percent closure threshold as a precautionary approach; raising the threshold to 90 percent only in the Atlantic region and maintaining the 80-percent threshold in the Gulf of Mexico region; and determining closure thresholds for each region and/or management group based on the stock status and characteristics of the fishery. Additionally, some Panel members commented that immediate closure at any quota threshold is infeasible given that some state regulations provide more than 24 hours of notice before closing a fishery. Therefore, requesting immediate closure can cause confusion in fisheries that occur in both state and Federal waters. Other Panel members suggested examining closure notice periods that are longer than five days.
As described above, both the 80-percent threshold and five-day notice requirement for commercial shark fisheries went into effect before electronic dealer reporting and before the impacts of Amendment 2 on fishing behavior, including trip lengths, were fully understood. This proposed rule considers modifying the five-day notice and 80-percent threshold with the goal of more fully utilizing available quota while also avoiding overharvests in these fisheries.
NMFS prepared a draft EA, RIR, and an IRFA, which present and analyze the anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of each alternative considered for this proposed rule. The complete list of alternatives and related analyses are provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and are not repeated here in its entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rulemaking is available from NMFS (see
NMFS considered six alternatives for the shark fishery-closure threshold and three alternatives for the shark fishery-closure notice period.
Alternative 1a, the No Action alternative, would maintain the 80-percent threshold for shark fishery closures. Alternative 1b would change the shark fishery-closure threshold to 90 percent of the available applicable overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota. Alternative 1c would change the shark fishery-closure threshold to 70 percent of the available applicable overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota. Alternative 1d would increase the shark fishery-closure threshold to 90 percent in the Atlantic Region, while maintaining the Gulf of Mexico closure threshold and overall non-regional threshold at 80 percent. Alternative 1e would establish objective criteria to evaluate whether a shark species and/or management group should be closed when the relevant landings reach, or are projected to reach, 80 percent of the available applicable overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, or allowed to remain open until 90 percent of the available applicable overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota is reached. These criteria include: (A) The stock status of the relevant species or management group and any linked species and/or management groups; (B) The patterns of over- and underharvest in the fishery over the previous five years; (C) The likelihood of continued landings after the Federal closure of the fishery; (D) The effects of the closure on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments; (E) The likelihood of landings exceeding the quota by December 31 of each year; and (F) The impacts of the closure on the catch rates of other shark management groups, including likelihood of an increase in dead discards. Under Alternative 1f, the preferred alternative, when NMFS calculates that landings have reached, or are projected to reach, 80 percent of the available applicable overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, NMFS will determine whether landings are projected to reach 100 percent of the relevant quota before the end of the fishing season (December 31). If so, NMFS will close the fishery through publication in the
Alternative 2a, the No Action alternative, would maintain the five-day period between filing of the closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register and the closure going into effect. Alternative 2b, the preferred alternative, would change the minimum notice time between filing of the closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register and the closure going into effect to three days. Alternative 2c would allow immediate closure of a shark fishery upon filing of the closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register.
Alternative 1f, the preferred alternative, would provide additional flexibility to achieve full quota utilization while still preventing overharvest of the quota. This alternative would also provide the flexibility to account for differences in regional reporting when monitoring quotas and the ability to close in time to ensure the quota is not exceeded. For instance, regions that are more timely in their reporting and have few landings after Federal closures (
In combination with any of the notification alternatives (five-day notice, three-day notice, or immediate closure) NMFS expects Alternative 1f would have neutral direct and indirect short- and long-term ecological impacts to the shark fishery as shark quotas would remain unchanged, leaving the fishery to operate under the current conditions. This alternative would support full quota utilization while preventing overharvest of the quota. Given the flexibility and responsiveness this alternative would provide, combined with neutral ecological impacts to the fishery stocks, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time.
Under Alternative 2b, the preferred alternative, NMFS would change the minimum notice period to three days instead of the current five-day notice once landings reach a threshold necessitating a closure. According to the data presented in Amendment 2, historically, shark-fishing trips were up to nine days in length. In the directed shark fishery, recent observer reports show that most shark fishermen take trips of one or two days, and likely do not need the full five-day notice in order to land all sharks before the closure date is effective. As such, this alternative should not interfere with directed shark trips already underway at the time of closure, but may have impacts on pelagic longline trips that may last several weeks. This alternative would allow more timely action in closing shark fisheries, helping to prevent overharvests.
Specifically, in combination with Alternative 1f, Alternative 2b would reduce the risk of exceeding the quota, especially if landings rates are high before the closure date is effective. This alternative would likely have both neutral direct and indirect short- and long-term ecological impacts to shark stocks because the allowable level of fishing pressure, catch rates, distribution of fishing effort, and commercial quotas would remain the same as otherwise authorized under actions that had assumed full utilization of the quota when analyzed. This alternative could potentially result in interrupted fishing activities for longer fishing trips, potentially resulting in regulatory discards and minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if trips were underway at the time of the notice of the closure. For instance, pelagic longline fishing vessels, which can take trips that last several weeks, may need to discard any dead sharks onboard and in their hold if the vessel is unable to land the sharks before the closure is effective. However, NMFS expects few dead discards and potential lost revenue as a result of closure notice timing as most pelagic longline fishermen do not target sharks and are unlikely to land many sharks given recent management measures to reduce shark mortality on pelagic longline vessels. Because this alternative would increase flexibility to close the fishery as needed while still preventing overharvest of the quota and allowing sufficient time for most fishermen to complete trips underway at the time of the notice of the closure, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time.
As described above, NMFS also considered five other alternatives regarding the threshold for closure (Alternatives 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e) and two other alternatives regarding the timing for a closure notice (Alternatives 2a and 2c). At this time, NMFS does not prefer any of those alternatives. NMFS does not prefer Alternative 1a (No Action Alternative) because this alternative could continue to leave some of the shark quotas underutilized. NMFS does not prefer Alternative 1b or 1d because increasing the closure threshold to 90 percent in either all (1b) or part (1d) of the region would increase the potential for overharvest. NMFS does not prefer Alternative 1c because of the potential for underharvest in the shark fisheries. NMFS does not prefer Alternative 1e because the additional inseason action required to assess these criteria and carry out this alternative would unnecessarily complicate the closure procedures and possibly confuse the regulated community given past, relatively simple protocols for shark fishery closures. NMFS does not prefer Alternative 2a (No Action Alternative) because this alternative does not increase flexibility in NMFS' ability to manage the shark fisheries in a timely manner. NMFS does not prefer Alternative 2c (change the timing of shark fishery species and or management groups closures to allow for immediate closure upon filing of the closure notice with the
Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, the moderator will explain how the conference call will be conducted and how and when attendees can provide comments. The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all the attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not they may be asked to leave the hearing or may not be allowed to speak during the conference call.
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule would have on small entities if adopted. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained below. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe reasons why the action is being considered. The purpose of this proposed action is to consider modifications to the percent landings threshold to a level that allows fishermen to utilize the full quota while avoiding under- and overharvest, and to determine a length of time between public notice and the effective date of a given fishery closure while avoiding under- and overharvest.
Section 603(b)(2) requires Agencies to describe the objectives of the proposed rule. NMFS has identified the following objectives, which are consistent with existing statutes such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its objectives, with regard to this proposed action:
• Maintaining optimum yield for all shark fishery species and/or management groups; and
• Establishing an appropriate length of public notice for a fishery closure.
Section 603(b)(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under the SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the
The proposed rule would apply to the approximately 496 commercial limited access permit holders in the Atlantic shark fishery (223 directed and 271 incidental permits) and 142 open access smoothhound shark permit holders, based on an analysis of permit holders as of October 2016. Not all permit holders are active in the shark fishery in any given year. Active directed permit holders are defined as those with valid permits that landed one shark, based on HMS electronic dealer reports. Of those 223 commercial directed limited access permit holders, 29, or 13 percent of permit holders, landed large coastal sharks (LCS) and 22, or 10 percent of permit holders, landed small coastal sharks (SCS) in the Atlantic. In the Gulf of Mexico region, 13, or 6 percent of permit holders, landed LCS in the western sub-region; 8, or 4 percent of the permit holders, landed LCS in the eastern sub-region; and 5, or 2 percent of permit holders, landed SCS throughout the region. Of directed limited access permit holders, 45, or 20 percent, landed pelagic sharks. Of the 142 open-access smoothhound shark permit holders, 75, or 53 percent of permit holders, landed sharks in the Atlantic region. NMFS has determined that the proposed rule would not likely affect any small governmental jurisdictions.
Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements. The alternatives considered would review and modify the percent landings threshold that prompts a shark fishery closure, and the length of time between public notice and the effective date of a given fishery closure with the goal of avoiding under- and overharvests in these fisheries.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and fishery management measures. These include the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National
One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are discussed below. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603 (c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of “significant” alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives. Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives.
The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels.
Alternative 1a, the No Action alternative, would maintain the existing 80-percent threshold to close the shark fishery and maintain current shark quotas. Based on the 2016 ex-vessel prices, the potential annual gross revenues for the 13 active directed permit holders from blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $433,308, while revenue from shark fins would be $229,723. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenues by each active directed permit holder for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $51,002 ($33,331 + $17,671). The potential annual gross revenues for the 8 active directed permit holders from blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $169,206, while revenue from shark fins would be $88,058. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenues by each active directed permit holder for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in the Gulf of Mexico region would be $32,158 ($21,151 + $11,007). The potential annual gross revenues for the 5 active directed permit holders for non-blacknose SCS and smoothhound in the Gulf of Mexico would be $89,909, while revenue from shark fins would be $55,450. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenues by each active directed permit holder for non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico would be $29,072 ($17,982 + $11,090). Since there have been no landings of smoothhound sharks in the Gulf of Mexico, the annual gross revenue for the active directed permit holders would be zero. The potential annual gross revenues for the 29 active directed permit holders from aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the Atlantic would be $317,016, while revenue from shark fins would be $64,968. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenues by each active directed permit holder for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark in the Atlantic would be $13,172 ($10,932 + $2,240). The potential annual gross revenues for the 22 active directed permit holders from non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark meat in the Atlantic would be $317,016, while revenue from shark fins would be $64,968. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenues by each active directed permit holder for non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark in the Atlantic would be $22,548 ($20,337 + $2,211). The potential annual gross revenues for the 75 active directed permit holders from smoothhound shark meat in the Atlantic would be $1,985,794, while revenue from shark fins would be $182,058. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenues by each active directed permit holder for smoothhound shark in the Atlantic would be $28,905 ($26,477 + $2,427). The potential annual gross revenues for the 45 active directed permit holders from pelagic sharks (blue, porbeagle, shortfin mako and thresher sharks) meat would be $2,113,982, while revenue from shark fins would be $162,530. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenues by each active directed permit holder for pelagic sharks would be $50,589 ($46,977 + $3,612). Alternative 1a would likely result in neutral direct short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts because shark fishermen would continue to operate under current conditions, with shark fishermen continuing to fish at similar rates. The No Action alternative could also have neutral indirect impacts to those supporting the commercial shark fisheries, since the retention limits, and thus current fishing efforts, would not change under this alternative.
Under Alternative 1b, NMFS would change the shark fishery-closure threshold to 90 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota. This alternative is likely to have neutral direct and indirect short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts because the base quotas would not change for any of the management groups and fishermen would still be limited in the total amount of sharks that could be harvested. This alternative could potentially lead to minor beneficial direct economic impacts if fishermen can land available quota that may have remained unharvested under the current 80-percent threshold. For example, in 2016, the quota for the aggregate LCS and blacktip management groups from the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region was underutilized by 241,579 lbs dw or 32 percent of the adjusted annual base quota, valued at $201,087 in potential ex-vessel revenue. Assuming all of this unharvested quota were caught, based on the 13 vessels that landed LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate gain of $15,468 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, who would receive a smaller amount per year. In the Atlantic, the blacknose shark management group was underutilized by 8,022 lbs dw or 23 percent of the quota, valued at $8,270 in potential ex-vessel revenue. Based on the 22 vessels that landed blacknose and non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate gain of $276 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, which would receive a smaller amount per year. Alternative 1b could also lead to minor adverse socioeconomic impacts in the short-term if the quotas are overharvested, which would lead to lower quotas the following year. In addition, this alternative could potentially lead to minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if
Under Alternative 1c, NMFS would change the shark fishery-closure threshold to 70 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota. This change would potentially leave a larger buffer for fishermen to complete trips and receive delayed dealer reports. It is likely the change in threshold to 70 percent would have neutral direct and indirect short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts since none of the commercial quotas are being changed and NMFS is not expecting an increase in effort or fishing. This alternative could potentially have minor adverse direct socioeconomic impacts if there is a large amount of underharvest remaining every year, after accounting for late dealer reports, that fishermen would no longer be able to harvest as compared to the No Action alternative. For instance, a 10-percent decrease in realized revenue for the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark fisheries would equate to an approximate $66,303 (10 percent of $433,308 + $229,273) loss in ex-vessel revenue. Based on the 13 vessels that landed LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate loss of $5,100 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, which would receive a smaller amount per year. However, these would only be short-term losses because NMFS has achieved close to full quota utilization in recent years for some shark quotas.
Under Alternative 1d, NMFS would change the shark fishery-closure threshold to 90 percent in the Atlantic Region, while maintaining the Gulf of Mexico closure threshold and overall non-regional threshold at 80 percent. Alternative 1d provides some flexibility in assigning different closure thresholds between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. In the Atlantic region, this alternative could potentially lead to minor beneficial direct economic impacts if fishermen can land available quota that may have remained unharvested under the current 80-percent threshold. For instance, a 10-percent increase in realized revenue for the Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark fisheries would equate to an approximate $38,198 (10 percent of $317,016 + $64,968) gain in ex-vessel revenue. Based on the 29 vessels that landed LCS in the Atlantic region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate increase of $1,317 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, which would receive a smaller amount per year. In the Gulf of Mexico region and for fisheries with no region, this alternative could likely result in neutral direct and indirect, short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts because shark fishermen would continue to operate under current conditions, with shark fishermen continuing to fish at similar rates. Impacts in the Gulf of Mexico would therefore be the same as those described in Alternative 1a.
Under Alternative 1e, when any shark fishery species and/or management group landings reach or are projected to reach 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, NMFS would evaluate the criteria before determining if a closure is needed at the 80-percent threshold. This alternative would add additional flexibility to close a fishery depending on a set of criteria, helping to maximize management efficacy while preventing overharvest. If this increased flexibility in determining when to close a fishery leads to full quota utilization of management groups, while still preventing overharvest of shark fisheries, then fishermen could potentially see additional revenue from being able to land sharks that would otherwise have remained unharvested under the existing 80-percent threshold. For instance, a 20-percent increase in realized revenue for the Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark fisheries would equate to an approximate $76,397 (20 percent of $317,016 + $64,968) gain in ex-vessel revenue. Based on the 29 vessels that landed LCS in the Atlantic region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate increase of $2,634 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, who would receive a smaller amount per year. Based upon these criteria, the fishery could still operate similarly to the status quo 80-percent closure threshold, which would result in neutral socioeconomic impacts as described for Alternative 1a, the status quo alternative. As examples, if a shark species/management group quota reaches 80 percent by September 1, then NMFS would evaluate the criteria in Alternative 1e before determining if a closure is needed at the 80-percent threshold in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions. Based on criteria A (stock status of the relevant species or management group and any linked species and/or management groups) and C (continued landings after the Federal closure), NMFS would likely close the shark species/management group quota in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Atlantic region, NMFS would likely also close the shark species/management group quota based on criteria A since all of the shark species/management groups in the region have an overfished or unknown stock status. This would lead to neutral socioeconomic impacts in both regions since there would be no change from current regulations. If a shark species/management group quota reaches 80 percent by December 1, then NMFS would need to evaluate all of the criteria closely before implementing a closure in either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic region. A key criterion to evaluate is the likelihood of landings exceeding the quota by December 31 of each year (Criteria E). In the Gulf of Mexico region, NMFS would also consider Criteria C (continued landings after the Federal closure) and how this would impact the fishery. In the Atlantic region, NMFS would likely keep the fishery open as long as landings are not projected to exceed the quota by the end of the year.
Under Alternative 1f, the preferred alternative, NMFS would maintain the 80-percent closure threshold but allow a shark fishery to remain open after the fishery's landings have reached or are projected to reach 80 percent as long as landings are not projected to reach 100 percent before the end of the fishing season. This alternative, similar to Alternatives 1d and 1e, would provide the flexibility of achieving full quota utilization while still preventing overharvest. This alternative could therefore lead to neutral socioeconomic impacts, similar to Alternative 1a, the status quo alternative, if the landings are projected to reach 100 percent before the end of the fishing season. As examples, if a shark species/management group landings reach 80 percent by September 1, then NMFS would likely have to close the fishery if it was in either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic regions because the landings would likely reach 100 percent before the end of the fishing season. This would cause neutral socioeconomic impacts since it would be the status quo
Under Alternative 2a, NMFS would maintain the status quo and would not change the notice period of five days for the closure of a management group. This alternative would have no impact on the allowable level of fishing pressure, catch rates, or distribution of fishing effort. As such, it is likely that the No Action Alternative as well as this alternative in combination with any of the Alternatives 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, or 1f would have both neutral direct and indirect, short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts. If there is a large amount of landings made during the five-day notice and a later closure under Alternatives 1b, 1c, or 1d, then there could be the potential for minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts for those fisheries who have underutilized the quota in recent years. The majority of fishing trips for sharks are currently one day in length, so a five-day closure notice should not result in regulatory discards for these trips. However, this alternative could potentially result in interrupted fishing activities, potentially resulting in regulatory discards if trips were underway at the time of the notice of the closure. For instance, pelagic longline fishing vessels, which can take trips that last several weeks, may need to discard any dead sharks onboard and in their hold if the vessel is unable to land the sharks before the closure is effective. However, NMFS expects few dead discards as a result of closure notices given that NMFS has implemented several management measures that prohibit retention of some sharks (
Under Alternative 2b, the preferred alternative, NMFS would change the minimum notice period to three days instead of the current five-day notice once the fisheries reached a landings threshold necessitating a closure. This change would allow more timely action in closing shark fisheries, helping to prevent overharvest. In combination with all other Alternatives (1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, and 1f), except Alternative 1c, this alternative would reduce the risk of exceeding the quota, especially if the landings rate was high before the closure date is effective. In combination with Alternative 1c (
Under Alternative 2c, NMFS would change the timing of shark fishery species and/or management group closures to allow immediate closure upon filing of the closure notice with the
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) Estimated date of fishery closure based on when the landings are projected to reach 80 percent of the quota given the realized catch rates and whether they are projected to reach 100 percent before the end of the fishing season;
(b) * * *
(2)
(3)
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, February 9, 2018 at 2 p.m. Central time. The Committee will continue discussion and preparations to hold a public hearing as part of their current study on civil rights and school funding in the state.
The meeting will take place on Friday, February 9, 2018 at 2 p.m. Central time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in numbers. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web conference on Friday March 9, 2018, from 12 p.m.-1:30 p.m. EST for the purpose of hearing public testimony on voting rights in the state.
The meeting will be held on Friday, March 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number (audio only) and web access link (visual only). Please use
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
This is the first in a series of public meetings the Committee will hold on this topic. Please consult the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of public meeting on voting rights in Arizona.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) Friday, March 9, 2018. The purpose of the briefing is for the Committee to receive testimony regarding potential barriers to voting such as language access, access to the polls, early voting, and voter registration that may have a disparate impact on voters on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.
The meeting will be held on Friday, March 9, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-576-4387, conference ID number: 4884905. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meetings. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meetings. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 15, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 12015-12017, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, March 9, 2018 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 60 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, March 9, 2018. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, March 9, 2018. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 15, 2018.
Matthew Renkey at (202) 482-2312, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On January 26, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of cast iron soil pipe (soil pipe) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form, on behalf of the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (the petitioner).
On January 30 and 31, 2018, Commerce requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on January 26, 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2), the period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is soil pipe from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On February 2, 2018, in response to a question from Commerce, the petitioner filed a revision to the scope language.
As discussed in the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that soil pipe, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition and the General Issues Supplement with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioner provided the 2017 production of the domestic like product by its members.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.
Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share and increasing market share of subject imports; underselling and price depression; lost sales and revenues; and negative impact on financial results, including total revenue, gross profits, operating income, and net income.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires Commerce to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.
The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of soil pipe in China benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC. Commerce examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of soil pipe from China receive countervailable subsidies from the GOC.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 32 alleged programs.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination in this investigation no later than 65 days after the date of initiation.
The petitioner named numerous companies as producers/exporters of soil pipe from China. Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation. In the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of soil pipe from China during the period of investigation under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States number listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix.
On February 5, 2018, Commerce released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD investigation.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
Comments for this investigation must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET, by the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of soil pipe from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties are advised to review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under Administrative Protective Order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is cast iron soil pipe, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications, and regardless of wall thickness, length, diameter, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. The scope of this investigation includes, but is not limited to, both hubless and hub and spigot cast iron soil pipe. Cast iron soil pipe is nonmalleable iron pipe of various designs and sizes. Cast iron soil pipe is generally distinguished from other types of nonmalleable cast iron pipe by the manner in which it is connected to cast iron soil pipe fittings.
Cast iron soil pipe is classified into two major types—hubless and hub and spigot. Hubless cast iron soil pipe is manufactured without a hub, generally in compliance with Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (CISPI) specification 301 and/or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification A888, including any revisions to those specifications. Hub and spigot pipe has one or more hubs into which the spigot (plain end) of a fitting is inserted. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above is covered by the scope of this investigation, whether or not produced according to a particular standard.
The subject imports are currently classified in subheading 7303.00.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): Cast iron soil pipe. The HTSUS subheading and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 17, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held via conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Room 20010, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230 (Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, May 11, 2018 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 60 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, May 11, 2018. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, May 11, 2018. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (PSF) from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable February 23, 2018.
Paul Walker, Enforcement and Compliance, Office V, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0238.
On September 6, 2017, Commerce initiated the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order
The merchandise subject to the order is synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on PSF from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins up to 44.30 percent.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218.
Notice of issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to California Almond Export Association, LLC (CAEA), Application No. 99-12A05.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA), issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to CAEA on February 9, 2018. A previous amended Export Trade Certificate of Review was issued to CAEA on June 12, 2017, and a notice of its issuance was published in the
Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2015). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
CAEA's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:
The effective date of the amended certificate is November 14, 2017, the date on which CAEA's application to amend was deemed submitted.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 15, 2018.
Javier Barrientos at (202) 482-2243, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On January 26, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of cast iron soil pipe (soil pipe) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form, on behalf of the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (the petitioner).
On January 31, 2018, Commerce requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of soil pipe from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that, such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on January 26, 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is soil pipe from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On February 2, 2018, in response to a question from Commerce, the petitioner filed a revision to the scope language.
As discussed in the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Commerce requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of soil pipe to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics used by manufacturers to describe soil pipe, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially-meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 7, 2018. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on March 19, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the less-than-fair value investigation.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition and the General Issues Supplement with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioner provided the 2017 production of the domestic like product by its members.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate the AD investigation of imports of soil pipe from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using average unit values (AUVs) of publicly available import data.
Commerce considers China to be a non-market economy (NME) country.
The petitioner argues that Brazil is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from Brazil is available to value all FOPs.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the
The petitioner valued direct materials based on publicly-available import data for Brazil obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period July 2017 through December 2017.
The petitioner relied on June through November 2017 data published by the Instituto Brasilero de Geografia e Estatistica for wage rates in manufacturing.
The petitioner valued natural gas and coke using GTA import data.
The petitioner calculated ratios for overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit based on the 2015 consolidated financial statements of Tupy SA, a cast iron products producer in Brazil.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of soil pipe from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for soil pipe from China is 93.32 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on soil pipe from China, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of soil pipe from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.
The petitioner named numerous companies as producers/exporters of soil pipe from China.
Exporters/producers of soil pipe from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & Compliance website. The Q&V response must be submitted by all Chinese exporters/producers no later than February 26, 2018. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of China (GOC)
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of soil pipe from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties are advised to review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under Administrative Protective Order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is cast iron soil pipe, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications, and regardless of wall thickness, length, diameter, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. The scope of this investigation includes, but is not limited to, both hubless and hub and spigot cast iron soil pipe. Cast iron soil pipe is nonmalleable iron pipe of various designs and sizes. Cast iron soil pipe is generally distinguished from other types of nonmalleable cast iron pipe by the manner in which it is connected to cast iron soil pipe fittings.
Cast iron soil pipe is classified into two major types—hubless and hub and spigot. Hubless cast iron soil pipe is manufactured without a hub, generally in compliance with Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (CISPI) specification 301 and/or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification A888, including any revisions to those specifications. Hub and spigot pipe has one or more hubs into which the spigot (plain end) of a fitting is inserted. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above is covered by the scope of this investigation, whether or not produced according to a particular standard.
The subject imports are currently classified in subheading 7303.00.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): Cast iron soil pipe. The HTSUS subheading and specifications are provided for convenience and customs
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with December anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable February 23, 2018.
Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with December anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, except for the review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (“solar cells and modules”) from the People's Republic of China (China), Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
In the event the Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells and modules from the PRC, the Commerce intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V Questionnaires. Further, Commerce intends to limit the number of Q&V Questionnaires issued in the review based on CBP data for U.S. imports of solar cells and solar modules from the PRC. The units used to measure the imported quantities of solar cells and solar modules are “number”; however, it would not be meaningful to sum the number of imported solar cells and the number of imported solar modules in attempting to determine the largest PRC exporters of subject merchandise by volume. Therefore, Commerce will limit the number of Q&V Questionnaires issued based on the import values in CBP data which will serve as a proxy for imported quantities. Parties subject to the review to which Commerce does not send a Q&V Questionnaire may file a response to the Q&V Questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they desire to be included in the pool of companies from which Commerce will select mandatory respondents. The Q&V Questionnaire will be available on Commerce's website at
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when Commerce will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that Commerce does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Furthermore, firms to Commerce issues a Q&V questionnaire in the antidumping duty administrative review of solar cells and modules from the PRC must submit a timely and complete response to the Q&V questionnaire, in addition to a timely and complete Separate Rate Application or Certification in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, Commerce will not give consideration to any timely Separate Rate Certification or Application made by parties to whom Commerce issued a Q&V questionnaire but who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V questionnaire. Exporters subject to the antidumping duty administrative review of solar cells and modules from the PRC to which Commerce does not send a Q&V questionnaire may receive consideration for separate-rate status if they file a timely Separate Rate Application or a timely Separate Rate Certification without filing a response to the Q&V questionnaire. All information submitted by respondents in the antidumping duty administrative review of solar cells and modules from the PRC is subject to verification. As noted above, the Separate Rate Certification, the Separate Rate Application, and the Q&V questionnaire will be available on Commerce's website on the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than December 31, 2018.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 19, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 48019, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, July 13, 2018 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 60 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, July 13, 2018. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, July 13, 2018. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on March 7, 2018.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 7, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the Reagan Building at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004. Please note admittance instructions in the
Cheryl L. Gendron, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number (301) 975-2785, email:
The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69), as amended by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. By statute, the MEP Advisory Board provides the NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the activities, plans, and policies of the Program; (2) assessments of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and (3) assessments of current performance against the plans of the Program. Background information on the MEP Advisory Board is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting agenda will include an update on Hollings MEP programmatic operations, as well as provide guidance and advice on current activities related to the 2017-2022 MEP National Network Strategic Plan. The MEP Advisory Board will provide input to NIST on supply chain development with an emphasis on defense suppliers, in order to strengthen the defense industrial base; make recommendations on the development of research and performance metrics to support and enrich MEP Center evaluation; receive updates from external organizations that work closely with the Program regarding national and state economic challenges, opportunities, and data trends. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board website at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. Requests must be received in writing before February 28, 2018 to be considered. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board website at
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 1/12/2018 (83 FR 9), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to furnish the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
On 1/19/2018 (83 FR 13), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to deletes products from the Procurement List that was previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: March 25, 2018.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 7, 2018, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221 filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to abandon two wells lines and convert the two associated injection/withdrawal wells to observation wells in its Holland Storage Field located in Erie County, New York. The abandonment will have no effect on the service to any of National Fuel's customers, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Alice
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website (
On August 22, 2017, Florida Southeast Connection, LLC (FSC) filed an application to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is considering this application in Docket No. CP17-463-000 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The proposed project is known as the Okeechobee Lateral Pipeline Project (Project), and would connect FSC's mainline system with the Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL) Okeechobee Clean Energy Center (OCEC). The Project would be capable of transporting up to 400 million cubic feet per day of natural gas to the OCEC.
This Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review indicates the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of an environmental assessment (EA) for this proposal. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
FSC requests authorization to construct and operate approximately 5.2 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline and associated facilities including an inspection tool launcher and a receiver and a meter station in Okeechobee County, Florida. As described above, this lateral pipeline would connect FSC's mainline system with FPL's OCEC. FSC anticipates construction would require four to five months.
On October 24, 2017, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, and EPA's regulations for implementing NEPA, EPA has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts related to the issuance of credit assistance to the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA) for State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. The EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of water infrastructure projects funded under the WIFIA credit assistance program in compliance with NEPA and the required environmental cross-cutters and other federal, state, and local environmental reviews. Based on the environmental impact analysis in the EA, EPA has made a preliminary determination that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from the issuance of the credit assistance to IFA. This notice initiates the 30-day review period and invites comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public regarding EPA's preliminary determination.
Comments must be received by March 25, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0079 to the
Danusha Chandy, Water Infrastructure Division, Office of Wastewater Management, WIFIA Program, Mail Code: 4201T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2165; email address
EPA is seeking public comment regarding its preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to document its determination that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from the issuance of credit assistance to IFA for SRF Loans under the WIFIA program. EPA invites the public to submit comments through
Congress enacted the WIFIA as part of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, as amended by sec. 1445 of Public Law 114-94 [1] and codified at 33 U.S.C. 3901-3914. WIFIA establishes a new federal credit program for water infrastructure projects to be administered by EPA.
The proposed federal action under consideration in this EA is approving or denying IFA's application by either issuing or not issuing a WIFIA loan. The IFA provides loans for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of eligible water and wastewater infrastructure projects as described in section 603(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(c)) and section 1452(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(2)). IFA applied for a WIFIA loan to help fund the 2017 3rd Quarter Project Priority Lists for the Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF) and Clean Water SRF (CWSRF) Loan Programs for projects applying for financial assistance in State Fiscal Year 2017. The proposed action involves the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance for a wide range of water and wastewater infrastructure projects, which are eligible for WIFIA credit assistance.
The environmental review process, which is documented by the EA, indicates that no potential significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed action. The EA, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of issuing of credit assistance to IFA for SRF Loans under the WIFIA program, considered the potential environmental impacts from water and waste water infrastructure projects.
Based on the environmental impact analysis in the EA, EPA has determined that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from the issuance of credit assistance to IFA for SRF Loans and the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, making the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) unnecessary. Therefore, EPA is issuing a preliminary FONSI.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau provide sixty days' advance notice of the opening of a displacement application filing window for low power television, TV translator stations, and analog-to-digital replacement translators that were displaced by the incentive auction and repacking process. The IATF and Media Bureau also announce that simultaneous with the release of the Public Notice they are releasing a channel study to assist stations in identifying potential new channels in the repacked television bands.
The Special Displacement Window will open April 10, 2018 and will close on May 15, 2018 at 11:59 p.m. EDT.
Shaun Maher, Video Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
The Incentive Auction Task Force (IATF) and the Media Bureau hereby provide sixty days' advance notice of the opening of a displacement application filing window for low power television (LPTV), TV translator stations, and analog-to-digital replacement translators (DRT) (referred to collectively as “LPTV/translator stations”) that were displaced by the incentive auction and repacking process (Special Displacement Window). The Special Displacement Window will open on Tuesday, April 10, 2018, and close on Tuesday, May 15, 2018, at 11:59 p.m. EDT. The IATF and Media Bureau also announce that simultaneous with the release of this Public Notice they are releasing a channel study to assist stations in identifying potential new channels in the repacked television bands. The Public Notice provides details regarding the channel study, reiterate some of the eligibility and filing procedures for the window, and lifts the displacement application filing freeze for eligible stations. The Public Notice also reminds eligible full power television stations that they may begin filing applications for digital-to-digital replacement translators (DTDRTs) on April 10, 2018.
The Commission in 2015 sought comment on whether to preserve a vacant television channel for use by unlicensed white space devices and wireless microphones in all areas of the country.
The data being provided is based on use of the incentive auction repacking and optimization software nationwide, and includes: (1) All other primary users in the repacked television band or in adjacent bands, including land mobile operations; (2) licenses and valid construction permits for LPTV/translator stations; (3) licenses and valid construction permits for full power and Class A stations that were not reassigned to new channels in repacking; (4) the full power and Class A television station technical parameters in the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice; (5) full power and Class A television station modifications proposed in the two alternate channel/expanded facilities filing windows; and (6) full power and Class A television station applications filed during the period from November 28 to December 7, 2017, when the April 2013 freeze on the filing of applications for minor modifications was lifted.
It is noted that the data shows those locations and channels that are potentially unavailable for displaced LPTV/translator stations. The data also indicates which LPTV/translator stations are potentially displaced as a result of causing interference or receiving interference based on certain assumptions that are described in more detail in the attached Appendix. This information is provided as guidance, and stations must conduct their own interference studies using TVStudy, particularly since technical parameters for stations may change. Technical showings will be required to demonstrate that LPTV/translator station displacement applications are predicted to cause less than the amount of interference prescribed in our rules to other TV stations, including other LPTV/translator stations.
In addition, the Incentive Auction Task Force and the Media Bureau announce today that they will host a webinar on the data on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 1 p.m., to review the assumptions described in the Appendix and the data we are providing, and to respond to questions from LPTV/translator stations. Additional information on this webinar will be provided in a future Public Notice.
During the Special Displacement Window, all of the requirements of the current displacement rules will continue to apply (
In order to ensure that as many potential channels as possible are available for operating LPTV/translator stations that are subject to displacement, we will permit stations to file displacement applications proposing pre-auction channels in the repacked television band (channels 2-36) that full power and Class A stations will relinquish as a result of the incentive auction and repacking process. This includes channels that were voluntarily relinquished by License Relinquishment Stations, Channel Sharing Stations, and Band Changing Stations as well as the pre-auction channels of Reassigned Stations. Applicants proposing such channels must include a request to waive the contingent application rule. The Media Bureau expects to view favorably requests to waive the contingent application rule filed by operating LPTV/translator stations that are subject to displacement if the station demonstrates that the requested channel is necessary to allow the station to continue to serve its current viewers. In addition, in order to comply with Section 73.3700(g)(2), the station must agree to a condition that it will not begin transmitting on the requested channel prior to discontinuation of operation by the full power or Class A station that is currently licensed to use that channel. If a conditional grant would require an LPTV/translator station to be silent for a consecutive 12-month period prior to discontinuation of operation by the full power or Class A station, the Media Bureau will consider a request for extension or
Displaced LPTV/translator stations that do not qualify for the Special Displacement Window (
This appendix describes the maps and data (collectively, “Channel Study”) released in conjunction with this Public Notice. As previously indicatd, the Channel Study provides location and channel availability information to assist eligible low power television (“LPTV”) stations, TV translator stations, and analog-to-digital replacement translators (“DRT”) (referred collectively as “LPTV/translator stations”) in identifying potential new channels in the repacked TV bands, consistent with the Commission's direction in
The Channel Study includes detailed information on a 2 x 2 km cell level about locations and channels that are likely not available for LPTV/translator station displacement facilities because of the presence of full power and Class A television stations, non-displaced LPTV/translator stations and permittees, or land mobile operations. The Channel Study also includes maps available in Tableau files to provide LPTV/translator stations a method to visually identify locations and channels that are likely unavailable as displaced channels. Both the maps and the detailed 2 x 2 km cell-level information should allow LPTV/translator stations to narrow their search options to the most viable locations and channels.
The Channel Study is based on the assumptions detailed in this appendix. Eligible displaced LPTV/translator stations must also conduct their own interference analysis using TVStudy prior to submitting displacement applications during the Special Displacement Window.
The Channel Study examined potential interference caused by LPTV/translator stations to full power or Class A stations and interference received by LPTV/translator stations from full power and Class A stations. For each full power, Class A and LPTV/translator station, the Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau (referred to collectively as “we”) determine the station's current interference-free population and then determined how much interference it caused and how much interference it received from each other station using two post auction scenarios—one scenario utilizing the most recent universe of granted applications and the second scenario utilizing the most recent universe of both pending and granted applications.
Compiling a complete list of stations and permittees was a necessary first step in developing the Channel Study. On January 17, 2018 (the “pull date”), we pulled a station list from the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS) that included the following categories of stations:
• All licensed full-power and Class A stations that existed prior to the auction;
• all LPTV/translator licensees and permittees (including DRTs, digital companion channels, permittees whose status is currently “CP Off Air,” and the set of LPTVs which have already been displaced as a result of the auction); and
• all Mexican and Canadian stations.
More specifically, we included all Canadian and Mexican stations in the border regions that were protected during the incentive auction. This approach is consistent with what was done during the incentive auction, however, the data set also includes additional Mexican allotments which need to be protected after the auction.
We entered the compiled list of stations into TVStudy to calculate the interference-free populations for all LPTV/translator stations to create a baseline, using the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69 (OET-69) and at a 2 x 2 km cell level of granularity consistent with the repacking software used in connection with the incentive auction. We then used TVStudy to run pairwise studies to determine whether two TV stations on either the same channel or on an adjacent channel within the same region would create new pairwise interference greater than 0.5% between the two stations.
In order for a displaced LPTV/translator station to receive the most complete picture of likely channel availability, two separate sets of data were generated. The first set of data used the parameters from the most recent universe of granted construction permits or licenses. This set will inform LPTV/translator stations of the required protections for full power and Class A stations as of the pull date. The following parameters were used to create this first set of data:
• The operating parameters from the most recent granted construction permits for any full power, Class A and LPTV/translator station as of the pull date;
• the post-auction baseline parameters for full power and Class A stations that did not have a granted construction permit since the close of the auction;
• the licensed operating parameters of LPTV/translator stations that did not have a granted construction permit since the close of the auction; and
• the protected parameters of Canadian and Mexican stations (including Mexican auction allotments).
Note that in addition to granted construction permits and licensed operating facilities included in this first set, we also included a small number of pending minor modifications for LPTV/translator stations in this first set. These pending minor modifications are likely either awaiting international coordination or were otherwise filed prior to the December 20, 2017 freeze on LPTV/translator minor modifications and, in either case, will require protection from applications filed in the Special Displacement Window.
The second set of data used the operating parameters from the most recent universe of both granted and pending applications for any station that has an application still under consideration as of the pull date. This set will inform LPTV/translator stations of the pending operating parameters that may be granted by the Commission. Even if a full power or Class A application is still pending when a displacement application is considered, it must nevertheless be protected from interference, as must any pending LPTV/translator minor modification application filed before December 20, 2017. The following parameters were used in this second set of data:
• The operating parameters from the most recent pending construction permits for any full power, Class A, and LPTV/translator stations (including LPTV/translator stations that have already been displaced as a result of the incentive auction) as of the pull date;
• the operating parameters from the most recent granted construction permit for any full power, Class A, and LPTV/translator station that did not have a pending construction permit as of the pull date;
• the post-auction baseline parameters for full power and Class A stations that did not have a pending or granted construction permit since the close of the auction;
• the licensed operating parameters of LPTV/translator stations that did not have a pending or granted construction permit since the close of the auction; and
• the protected parameters of Canadian and Mexican stations (including Mexican auction allotments).
We had to make one minor correction to the set of stations included in the pending and granted applications study. WWDT-CD (facility ID: 58261) was accidentally not included in the data used by TVStudy to create this scenario. To provide a more accurate picture for this study, WWDT-CD's interference-free service area was added manually into the data used to create the Tableau maps. WWDT-CD was, however, correctly included in the study that considered only granted applications.
The results of these pairwise studies indicate, for each 2 x 2 km cell, whether the LPTV/translator station causes interference to a full power or Class A station or whether the LPTV/translator station receives interference from a full power or Class A station. If the LPTV/translator station was predicted to cause more than 0.5% new interference to the interference-free population of a full power or Class A station, it is considered displaced in the Channel Study due to interference caused. In addition, by aggregating the pairwise studies, the resulting output shows whether a LPTV/translator station receives in aggregate more than 2% new interference to its interference-free population from any combination of repacked full power and Class A stations. Any station that receives more than 2% new interference in aggregate but does not cause more than 0.5% interference will be considered displaced in the Channel Study due to interference received. We used the 2% threshold as a conservative measurement of displacement based on the pairwise protections that LPTV/translator stations owe other LPTV/translator stations.
LPTV/translator stations that are marked as displaced, either because they cause or receive more than the stated threshold amount of interference, may not in fact be displaced because LPTV/translator stations have the option to modify their facility to eliminate such interference issues and remain on their current channel. Nevertheless, for purposes of the Channel Study, we mark these stations as being potentially displaced so that other LPTV/translator stations will be aware of this fact. Also, LPTV/translator stations that currently broadcast on channels (38-51) are automatically displaced because they are in the new 600 MHz band for mobile broadband service and are not included in the interference studies underlying the Channel Study.
This data was then aggregated by point (
• Protected due to land mobile or off shore radio;
• within a full power or Class A station's service area;
• within an LPTV/translator station's service area where that station does not cause more than 0.5% interference to a full power or Class A station or receive more the 2% aggregate interference;
• within an LPTV/translator station's service area where that station receives more the 2% aggregate interference; or
• within an LPTV/translator station's service area where that station causes more than 0.5% interference to a full power or Class A station.
Note that for purposes of generating the Channel Study, we continued to use the same distance-based protections that were used in the incentive auction.
Points are categorized in this way to show areas likely to be unable to accommodate a displaced LPTV/translator station. Land mobile, full power and Class A stations, and LPTV/translator stations not causing or receiving interference are unlikely to modify their facilities and their current service areas are unlikely to be able to accommodate a displaced LPTV/translator station. LPTV/translator stations that are receiving interference may accept the interference and continue to broadcast or make modifications to mitigate the interference, or, if they cannot tolerate or eliminate the interference, they may file for a new channel in the Special Displacement Window. LPTV/translator stations causing interference must make modifications to mitigate the interference or file for a new channel in the Special Displacement Window.
We provide four types of maps as visual tools to assist LPTV/translator stations in identifying available channels in their service area. All visualizations are Tableau workbooks that can be viewed using the free Tableau Reader (available here
The first and second workbooks show the locations and channels currently in the service area of full power, Class A, non-displaced LPTV/translator, or land mobile operations, and are therefore likely not available to displaced LPTV/translator stations. The third and fourth workbook show which LPTV/translator stations that remain in the TV band are displaced either as a result of causing or receiving interference. The four visualizations are identified in the bullets below and described in more detail in the following subsections.
•
•
•
•
The two Protected Points by Channel visualizations display color coded maps. The colors identified below signify the existence of certain services in an area. Points that do not fall within any relevant service's or station's service area are not colored. Examples of these visualizations are provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below, and comprehensive information is available in the CSV files discussed below and posted online.
• Green denotes an area protected due to land mobile or off shore radio.
• Blue denotes an area within a full power or Class A station's service area.
• Light blue denotes an area within an LPTV/translator station's service area where that station does not cause more than 0.5% new interference to a full power or Class A station or receive more the 2% new aggregate interference.
• Orange denotes an area within an LPTV/translator station's service area where that station receives more than 2% new aggregate interference.
• Red denotes an area within an LPTV/translator station's service area where that station causes more than 0.5% interference to a full power or Class A station.
As noted above, there are two Tableau workbooks for each visualization. One workbook reflects the data set using the service area parameters from the most recently granted construction permits or licenses of full or Class A TV stations as of the pull date and the second workbook reflects the data set using the service area parameters from pending construction permits as of the pull date.
The two Potentially Displaced LPTV Station Map visualizations show LPTV/translator stations that are potentially displaced because they cause new pairwise interference greater than 0.5% to a full power or Class A station or because they receive aggregate new interference greater than 2%. The 2% parameter is a default used in the data but it can be changed using a filter next to the map. Using the lasso tool within Tableau, the user can select a geographic region to generate a table containing the pairwise and aggregate interference data, and also view the interference free service area of individual LPTV stations to see the impact of new interference. Examples of the visualizations available are provided in Figure 3 through Figure 6 below and comprehensive information is available in the data provided online.
The online Channel Study includes three zip files. The first zip file contains the three CSV files unique to the granted applications study. The second zip file contains the three CSV files unique to the pending and granted applications study. The third zip file contains the two CSV files common to both studies. The CSV files contained in these three zip files were used to generate the Tableau maps. Each study contains a CSV file, lptv_aggregated.csv, which is the aggregated 2 x 2 km point data as categorized above, and forms the basis for the Tableau maps. The other two CSV files combined with the common two CSV files contain the underlying point data for each LPTV/translator station used to generate the aggregated data. These are provided in comma separated value format and are available to users to generate their own study scenario or to replicate our analysis.
The following three files (detailed in Tables 1-3 below) are in the zip file unique to each study. The lptv_aggregated.csv file identifies, for each channel, any point that falls within a service area. The file contains the fields listed in Table 1 below:
The stations_points.csv file identifies the interference-free points for each station on the station's assigned channel in the study. These points establish the total interference-free population for a given station and also the possible locations for interference to that station. The file contains the fields listed in Table 2 below:
The ix_paired.csv file identifies interference between any two stations (LPTV/translator stations and full power/Class A stations) according to TVStudy at a given point. The file contains the following fields listed in Table 3 below:
The following two files (detailed in Tables 4-5 below) are in the other zip file and are common to both runs. The lm_points.csv file identifies points that must be protected on a specific channel due to land mobile, land mobile waivers, and off shore radio (LM/LMW/OSR). The file contains the fields listed in Table 4 below:
The pointkeys.csv file identifies the characteristics associated with each point, specifically latitude, longitude, country and population. The file contains the fields listed in Table 5 below:
We are also making available on the website a zip file that contains the three TVStudy XML scenarios used to generate the interference data used in the Channel Study. The first scenario, “180124-Pre.xml”, was used to generate the interference-free service areas of LPTV/translator stations on their current channels. The second scenario, “180124-PostG.xml”, was used to calculate the interference to/from LPTV/translator stations in the granted applications study. The third scenario, “180124-PostP.xml”, was used to calculate interference to/from LPTV/translator stations in the pending and granted applications study. These studies were run using the Interference Check template included with TVStudy 2.2.4. The output of these three TVStudy scenarios was combined into the data tables described in III.d. above.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 19, 2018.
1.
Office of Technology Strategy/Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of the currently approved information collection requirement concerning the reporting and use of information concerning integrity and performance of recipients of grants and cooperative agreements.
Submit comments on or before March 26, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Dennis Harrison, Integrated Award Environment, GSA, 202-215-9767, or via email at
This information collection requirement, OMB Control No. 3090-0293, currently titled “Reporting and Use of Information Concerning Integrity and Performance of Recipients of Grants and Cooperative Agreements” is necessary in order to comply with section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, Public Law 110-417, as amended by Public Law 111-212, hereafter referred to as “the Act.” The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417) was enacted on October 14, 2008. Section 872 of this Act required the development and maintenance of an information system that contains specific information on the integrity and performance of covered Federal agency contractors and grantees.
The Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) was developed to address these requirements. FAPIIS provides users access to integrity and performance information from the FAPIIS reporting module in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), proceedings information from the Entity Management section of the System for Award Management (SAM) database, and suspension/debarment information from the Performance Information section of SAM.
As stated in 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, the Federal awarding agency is required to review information available through any OMB-designated repositories of government-wide eligibility qualification or financial integrity information, as appropriate.
The Federal awarding agency is required to review the non-public segment of the OMB-designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently the FAPIIS), prior to making a Federal award where the Federal share is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), defined in 41 U.S.C. 134, over the period of performance.
For non-federal entities (NFEs), if the total value of the NFEs currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of the Federal award, then the NFE must disclose semiannually, and maintain the currency of information reported to the SAM that is made available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently the FAPIIS) about civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings, as described in the award terms and conditions, for the most recent five year period.
A notice was published in the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. The listing for Quality Solutions has expired and AHRQ has delisted the PSO accordingly.
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 6, 2018.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS website:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery. HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
Quality Solutions, PSO number P0165, is a component entity of: Chest Medicine Associates, Coastal Women's Healthcare, Eyecare Medical Group, Maine Nephrology Associates, New England Cancer Specialists, Plastic & Hand Surgical Associates, Portland Gastroenterology, and Spectrum Medical Group. The PSO chose to let its listing expire by not seeking continued listing. Accordingly, Quality Solutions was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 6, 2018.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website at
Administration for Community Living/Administration on Aging, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living/Administration on Aging (ACL/AoA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (Proposed Extension with Changes of a Currently Approved Collection (ICR Rev)).
Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 26, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax to 202.395.5806, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL; by email to
Louise Ryan, telephone: (206) 615-2514; email:
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL/AoA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
States provide the following data and narrative information in the report:
1. Numbers and descriptions of cases filed and complaints made on behalf of long-term care facility residents to the statewide ombudsman program;
2. Major issues identified that impact the quality of care and life of long-term care facility residents;
3. Statewide program operations; and
4. Ombudsman activities in addition to complaint investigation.
The report form and instructions have been in continuous use, with minor modifications, since they were first approved by OMB for the FY 1995 reporting period. This current request is for a Revision of a Currently Approved Collection (ICR Rev) to acquire new approval for a revised modification of instruction and data collection elements for FFY 2019-2021.
The data collected on complaints filed with ombudsman programs and narrative on long-term care issues provide information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and others on patterns of concerns and major long-term care issues affecting residents of long-term care facilities. Both the complaint and program data collected assist the states and local Ombudsman programs in planning strategies and activities, providing training and technical assistance, and developing performance measures.
A notice was published in the
In general, there were no significant comments on the proposed data elements. Instead, comments focused on ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. These comments were very helpful and many of the proposed edits and language suggestions were adopted.
Some commenters expressed concerns about training needs and time required to adapt their software. ACL is working with the contractor developing the reporting software to develop training modules on how to use the new software. ACL anticipates that states will not need to develop training materials or host training to meet the federal reporting requirements. Training will be offered as webinars and in person at national conferences, when possible. User support materials and recorded webinars will also be available on the submission website. The National Ombudsman Resource Center will develop modules on how to interpret the new definitions and codes similar to past training. This includes hosting webinars and providing in-person training at their annual spring training for state LTC Ombudsmen. In addition, they will host all tools and modules on their website. The contractor is holding meetings with vendors and state information technology staff on the technical requirements of the new system and will provide data templates in various formats; and detailed crosswalks of the current data collection to the new data collection. Despite the concerns addressed, there was an overall positive tone to the comments. State Ombudsman programs largely support the changes made by ACL to NORS. They indicated they appreciate ACL's efforts to incorporate many of the revisions previously recommended. Further, they indicated these changes will result in more accurate and consistent reporting as well as more precise identification of trends and the systems advocacy needed to address common complaints.
In consideration of the comments, additional burden time has been factored in to accommodate changes in data collection at the case level resulting in an average increase of 75.6 hours per state for a total 223.6 hours annually. Despite the decrease in the number of data elements we believe this more adequately reflects the overall burden. This increase in burden hours also recognizes that this revision is the most significant change to NORS data collection since its implementation in 1995.
The reporting form tables and a crosswalk from the old data collection to the new may be viewed at the ACL website:
AoA estimates the burden of this collection and entering the additional report information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for ZYDELIG based on new drug application (NDA) 206545 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 24, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product ZYDELIG (idelalisib). As approved in both NDA 206545 and NDA 205858, ZYDELIG is indicated for treatment of patients with:
• Relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia in combination with rituximab, in patients for whom rituximab alone would be considered appropriate therapy due to other co-morbidities.
• Relapsed follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (FL) in patients who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
• Relapsed small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) in patients who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
Accelerated approval was granted for FL and SLL based on overall response rate. Improvement in patient survival or disease related symptoms has not been established. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
Subsequent to the approvals, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for ZYDELIG (U.S. Patent Nos. RE44599 and RE44638) from ICOS Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 4, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approvals of ZYDELIG under NDA 206545 and NDA 205858 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 ZYDELIG is 2,247 days. Of this time, 2,017 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 230 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 494 days or 708 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of 24 abbreviated
Approval is withdrawn as of March 26, 2018.
Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945,
The holders of the applications listed in the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of March 26, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on March 26, 2018 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 13, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, March 14, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
Fishers Lane Conference Center, Terrace Level, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 240-453-8141; fax: 240-453-6909; email address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
The Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS) was established by SACHRP in October 2006 and is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment.
The Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting and charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS would benefit from harmonization, consistency, clarity, simplification and/or coordination.
The SACHRP meeting will open to the public at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, March 13, 2018, followed by opening remarks from Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director of the Office for Human Research Protections and Dr. Stephen Rosenfeld, SACHRP Chair.
The SAS and SOH subcommittees will present their recommendations regarding the description of “key information,” as required by the revised Common Rule's § 46.116(a)(5)(i). This will be followed by a discussion of SOH recommendations on the research use of repositories and registries under various consent models, under both the current and the revised Common Rule. The Tuesday, March 13, meeting will adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m.
The Wednesday, March 14, meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. The SOH will present and discuss recommendations on the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and its impact on U.S. human subjects research. Modifications to the previous day's work will be discussed and finalized. The meeting will adjourn at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Time for public comment sessions will be allotted both days. On-site registration is required for participation in the live public comment session. Note that public comment must be relevant to issues currently being addressed by the SACHRP. Individuals submitting written statements as public comment should email or fax their comments to SACHRP at
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated SACHRP point of contact at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Findings of research misconduct have been made on the part of Colleen T. Skau, Ph.D., former postdoctoral fellow in the Cell Biology and Physiology Center, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Skau engaged in research misconduct in research supported by NHLBI, NIH. The administrative actions, including three (3) years of supervision, were implemented beginning on January 25, 2018, and are detailed below.
Wanda K. Jones, Ph.D., Interim Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly reporting falsified and/or fabricated data and/or falsifying and/or fabricating data in the following two (2) papers:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentional, knowing, or reckless falsification and/or fabrication of the research record by selectively reporting by inappropriate inclusion/omission or alteration of data points in ten (10) figures and falsely reporting the statistical significance based on falsified data in ten (10) figures across the two (2) papers and supplementary material. Specifically, ORI found that:
• In Paper 1, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated the research record in:
• In Paper 2, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated the research record in:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsely claiming in the methods and results to have performed validation of deletion/re-expression of FMNR2 levels in genetically modified B16 cell lines when that genetic modification was not validated for data reported in Figures 7 and 7S of Paper 1.
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsely reporting a larger number of data points than actually were collected in fourteen (14) figures across the two (2) papers and supplementary materials. Specifically:
• In Paper 1, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated the reported data in:
• In Paper 2, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated the reported data in:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fabricating results and/or falsely labelling experimental results that arose from alternate experimental conditions/experiments in seven (7) figures across the two (2) papers and supplementary materials. Specifically:
• In Paper 1, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated the record in:
• In Paper 2, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated the record in:
Dr. Skau entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and voluntarily agreed, beginning on January 25, 2018:
(1) To have her research supervised for a period of three (3) years; Respondent agreed to ensure that prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, the institution employing her must submit a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties to ORI for approval; the plan for supervision must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of Respondent's research contribution; Respondent agreed that she will not participate in any PHS-supported research until a plan for supervision is submitted and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon plan for supervision.
(2) that for a period of three (3) years, any institution employing her must submit in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;
(3) if no supervisory plan is provided to ORI, to provide certification to ORI on annual basis that she has not engaged in, applied for, or had her name included on any application, proposal, or other request for PHS funds without prior notification to ORI;
(4) to exclude herself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for a period of three (3) years; and
(5) to the correction or retraction of:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into NIH buildings.
Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance.
The Coast Guard announces that the Thirteenth District has issued a certificate of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the M/V GLOBAL PROVIDER (O.N. CG1427905). We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to the construction and placement of the aft and forward masts, and required lights, M/V GLOBAL PROVIDER (O.N. CG1427905) cannot fully comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction. This notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on February 14, 2018.
For information or questions about this notice call or email LT B. Luke Woods, Thirteenth District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-220-7232, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law
The Chief, Prevention Division, of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, certifies that the M/V GLOBAL PROVIDER (O.N. CG1427905) is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the forward and aft masts, and required lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction, or design of the vessel. The unique design of the vessel did not lend itself to full compliance with Annex I part 2(a)(i), Annex 1 part 2(a)(ii), and Annex 1 part 2(i)(i) of the 72 COLREGS of the International Navigational Rules. The Chief, Prevention Division further finds and certifies that the forward and aft masts, and required lights, are in the closest possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee and its subcommittees will meet in New Orleans, Louisiana to discuss the safety of operations and other matters affecting the offshore oil and gas industry. These meetings are open to the public.
The full Committee will meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Central Time). These meetings may end early if the Committee has completed its business, or the meetings may be extended based on the number of public comments.
All meetings will be held at the Omni Riverfront Hotel, 701 Convention Center Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the individuals listed in the
Written comments must be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Commander Jose Perez, Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant (CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone (202) 372-1410, fax (202) 372-8382 or email
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee's subcommittee on Regulatory Review will meet on March 27, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Central Time) to review, discuss and formulate recommendations.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory full Committee will hold a public meeting on March 28, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Central Time) to review and discuss the progress of, and any reports and recommendations received from the above listed subcommittees from their deliberations on December 12, 2017. The Committee will then use this information and consider public comments in formulating recommendations to the United States Coast Guard. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer during the discussion and recommendation portions of the meeting and during the public comment period, see Agenda item (5).
A complete agenda for March 28, 2018 full Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Welcoming remarks.
(2) General Administration and accept minutes from July 2017 National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee public teleconference.
(3) Current Business—Presentation and discussion of progress from the Regulatory Review Subcommittee.
(4) New Business—
(a) Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Activities Presentation.
(b) Classification Society Panel Discussion.
(c) Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Update.
(d) Outer Continental Shelf National Center of Expertise Update.
(e) International Association of Drilling Contractors Presentation.
(f) Outer Continental Shelf Operators Panel Discussion on 2017 Hurricane Season Impacts.
(g) Introduction of a new task statement: Lessons Learned from the 2017 Hurricane Response Efforts—an Industry Point of View.
(5) Public comment period.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
A public oral comment period will be held during the meeting on March 28, 2018, and speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Contact one of the individuals listed below to register as a speaker.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.
The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will meet via teleconference to discuss the Regulatory Reform tasking efforts (CFSAC task statement #01-17) and may take action to submit their report to the United States Coast Guard. The teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider CFSAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
Mr. Joseph D. Myers, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, (202) 372-1249, or email
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 U.S.C., Appendix.
The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is authorized by Title 46 United States Code Section 4508. The Committee's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels.
The agenda for the March 15, 2018, is as follows:
(1) Introduction.
(2) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
(3) Old Business from the 37th Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee meeting.
(4) New Business.
(5) Discussion of Regulatory Reform Task #01-17 Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(6) Public Comment period.
(7) Formulate recommendations regarding Task #01-17.
A copy of all meeting documentation is available at
Public comments will be limited to three minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual listed in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of
This amendment was issued February 9, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the Federal share of assistance, including direct Federal assistance, provided under section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173), with respect to a major disaster declared pursuant to such Act for damages resulting from a wildfire in calendar year 2017, shall be 90 percent of the eligible costs. The adjustment to the Federal share applies to assistance provided before, on, or after the date of enactment of the Act. The major disaster declared on January 2, 2018, for the State of California is amended as follows:
Federal funds for debris removal (Category A), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program is authorized at 90 percent of total eligible costs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4355-DR), dated January 2, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued February 8, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 2, 2018.
Merrimack County for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the territory of American Samoa (FEMA-3397-EM), dated February 11, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued February 11, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 11, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the territory of American Samoa resulting from Tropical Storm Gita beginning on February 7, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Benigno Bern Ruiz, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the territory of American Samoa have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
The territory of American Samoa for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4344-DR), dated October 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued February 9, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the Federal share of assistance, including direct Federal assistance, provided under section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173), with respect to a major disaster declared pursuant to such act for damages resulting from a wildfire in calendar year 2017, shall be 90 percent of the eligible costs. The adjustment to the Federal share applies to assistance provided before, on, or after the date of enactment of the Act. The major disaster declared on October 10, 2017, for the State of California is amended as follows:
Federal funds for debris removal (Category A), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program is authorized at 90 percent of total eligible costs.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; 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 or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.
We must receive any written comments on or before March 26, 2018.
Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to
•
•
Carlita Payne, 612-713-5343;
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA 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, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild.
We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
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 basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to
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 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by March 26, 2018.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of TVA. The human remains were removed from the following archeological sites in Lauderdale County, AL: 1LU15, 1LU18, 1LU114, 1LU275, 1LU276, and 1LU277.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
On an unknown date after April of 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from sites 1LU15, 1LU18, 1LU114, 1LU275, 1LU276, and 1LU277 in Lauderdale County, AL. In 1981, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) entered into a contract with Auburn University for a survey of the cultural resources on Seven Mile Island and adjacent Coffee Slough. This area is part of the Seven Mile Island Archeological District which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Natural erosion exacerbated by persistent looting raised questions regarding the condition of the sites on the island, which had not been professionally surveyed since the 1930s. Fieldwork took place from mid-December of 1981 to mid-April of 1982. Details regarding this survey may be found in a report,
Sometime after the fieldwork, TVA was notified that erosion and looting had exposed human remains along the shoreline of the island. At TVA's request, archeologists from Auburn University removed these human remains and curated them at the University. Human remains representing one individual each were collected from the surface of sites 1LU15, 1LU18, 1LU114, 1LU276, and 1LU277. Human remains representing four individuals were excavated from an eroding shoreline of site 1LU275. Human remains representing one individual were collected from a south beach surface collection unit between 1LU276 and 1LU277. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological analysis and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D,
TVA is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Utah Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Utah Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Utah Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by March 26, 2018.
Michelle Knoll, Utah Museum of Natural History, 301 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, telephone (801) 581-3876, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City, UT. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from 42GA34 (Coombs Village), Garfield County, UT.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Utah Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)), hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.” Requests for consultation were also sent to the Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, (hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes”).
In 1958 and 1959, human remains representing 37 individuals were removed by the University of Utah from privately-owned land in the town of Boulder, Garfield County, UT. One additional set of human remains and associated funerary objects were excavated by the University of Utah in 1969 after the property had been transferred to the State of Utah. The human remains and associated funerary objects were transferred from the University of Utah to the Utah Museum of Natural History in 1973. All of the human remains and associated funerary objects are currently in the possession of Anasazi State Park, but under the control of the Utah Museum of Natural History. Individual ages range from newborns to elderly and consist of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 97 associated funerary objects are 57 ceramic vessels, 12 lots ceramic sherds, 5 minerals, 5 lots debitage, 4 beads, 4 pendants, 4 chipped stone tools, 2 bone awls, 1 beaded necklace, 1 beaded bracelet, 1 seed, and 1 faunal bone. The majority of the ceramics were identified as Kayenta Branch Puebloan.
Coombs Village (42GA34) is an Ancestral Puebloan village site occupied circa A.D. 1070-1250. Most of the archeological lines of evidence clearly indicate a Kayenta Branch Puebloan occupation. The Kayenta Branch Puebloan are generally recognized as an Ancestral Puebloan group with direct ties to the Hopi Tribe of Arizona. The biological data from Coombs Village strongly supports this conclusion. The culture history line of evidence using linguistics is inconclusive and the Indian Claims Commission did not recognize the Eastern Plateaus district as the aboriginal homeland of the Hopi. However, migration evidence to and from this region using Hopi oral history and archeological evidence of Kayenta Branch Puebloan and Hopi presence in the region in the PIV period support a proposed shared group identity between the Kayenta Branch Puebloan occupants of Coombs Village and the Hopi Tribe of
Officials of the Utah Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 38 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the ninety-seven objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of a death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Michelle Knoll, Utah Museum of Natural History, 301 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, telephone (801) 581-3876, email
The Utah Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Utah Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Utah Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Utah Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by March 26, 2018.
Michelle Knoll, Utah Museum of Natural History, 301 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, telephone (801) 581-3876, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City, UT. The human remains were removed from 42WS50 (Three Mile Ruin), Washington County, UT.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Utah Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)), hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.” Requests for consultation were also sent to the Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, (hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes”).
In 1962, human remains representing one individual were removed by the University of Utah from privately-owned land near the town of Ivins, Washington County, UT. The individual was transferred to the Utah Museum of Natural History in 1973. The highly fragmented remains of a juvenile's mandible and several teeth were recovered from a pit in a room block on a Virgin Branch Puebloan site, which had at least two occupations dating from A.D. 1050-1300. The circumstances of the burial suggest that the pit was not intended for the individual and that the partial human remains washed or blew into the pit after the site's abandonment. No associated funerary objects were identified. No known individuals were identified.
In addition to the Virgin Branch Puebloan occupation, the Southern Paiute have occupied the immediate area since A.D. 1400, possibly earlier. The questionable context of the burial precludes any determination of cultural affiliation given the current evidence, other than Native American, which was confirmed through dental analysis.
Officials of the Utah Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry, based on dental morphology.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)).
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)).
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Michelle Knoll, Utah Museum of Natural History, 301 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, telephone (801) 581-3876, email
The Utah Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society (SLOCAS), assisted by the Fowler Museum at UCLA, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to SLOCAS. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to SLOCAS at the address in this notice by March 26, 2018.
Christina MacDonald, SLOCAS, P.O. Box 109, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, telephone (805) 549-3493, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of SLOCAS, San Luis Obispo, CA. The human remains were removed from Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the Northern Chumash Tribe, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
In 2014, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were identified in an archived collection at SLOCAS from CA-SLO-14, also known as the Sweet Springs and/or the Cypress Village site, which is located in Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Between 1970 and 1975, Jay Von Werlhoff directed excavations at CA-SLO-14 with the assistance of his students at Cuesta College and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, as well as members of SLOCAS. Following completion of the excavation, SLOCAS took possession of the collection. Neither Von Werlhoff nor SLOCAS ever published a report on this work. Later work at the site produced material that yielded a radiocarbon date of 3706 BP.
Between 2005 and 2014, archeological studies were conducted at CA-SLO-14 by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., as part of a wastewater management (sewer) project undertaken by San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Public Works. Far Western and SLO County contacted SLOCAS and arranged the loan of the materials collected from CA-SLO-14 by Jay Von Werlhoff in the 1970s. Far Western used the Von Werlhoff collection for comparison with the collection recovered as part of the SLO County
SLOCAS determined the human remains from CA-SLO-14 are culturally affiliated with the Chumash due to past consultation efforts of SLO County regarding human remains from CA-SLO-14. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI) is the only federally recognized Chumash tribe. In an MOA between SLO County and SYBCI, the SYBCI were identified as the federally recognized tribe with cultural affiliation to CA-SLO-14. Ethnographic evidence also points to the Chumash as being culturally affiliated with the area where CA-SLO-14 is located as it is near the village site of
Officials of SLOCAS have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Christina MacDonald, SLOCAS, P.O. Box 109, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, telephone (805) 549-3493, email
SLOCAS is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the Northern Chumash Tribe, a non-federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief. The ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order issue against certain UV curable coatings for optical fibers imported by respondent Momentive UV Coatings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China (“MUV”). The ALJ found no violation of section 337 by respondent OFS Fitel, LLC of Norcross, Georgia (“OFS”). However, should the Commission find a violation of section 337 by OFS, the ALJ recommends that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order against certain coated optical fibers imported by OFS, and that a cease and desist order issue to OFS. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to the Commission's Rules.
Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation, including the complaint and the public record, can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued in this investigation on February 15, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third
(v) explain how the limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on March 22, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1031”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. on February 20, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain clidinium bromide and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents: Bi-Coastal Pharma International LLC of Shrewsbury, NJ; Bi-Coastal Pharmaceutical Corporation of Shrewsbury, NJ; ECI Pharmaceuticals LLC of Fort Lauderdale, FL; Virtus Pharmaceuticals LLC of Tampa FL; and Virtus Pharmaceuticals OPCO II LLC of Nashville, TN. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 26, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application March 26, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 7, 2017, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2898 Manufacturers Road, Greensboro, NC 27406 applied to be registered as an importer of Nabilone (7379), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in finished dosage form for commercial distribution purposes only. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Civil Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Civil Division, 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 April 24, 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 Talitha Guinn-Shaver, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Civil Communications Office (Attn: Elder Justice Initiative) (Phone: 202-598-0292).
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.
5.
6.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed.
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about the Evaluation of Strategies Used in TechHire and SWFI Grant Programs. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before April 24, 2018.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Christina Yancey by email at
The Chief Evaluation Office (CEO), in collaboration with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), of DOL seeks to build evidence about effective approaches to prepare Americans with skills and connect them to well-paying, middle- and high-skilled, and high growth jobs in H-lB industries (such as IT, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, financial services, and broadband). There is a particular interest in learning about approaches to serving populations and individuals who have traditionally faced barriers to training and employment opportunities such as youth and young adults, parents with childcare needs, individuals with disabilities, individuals with limited English proficiency, and individuals with criminal records. The evaluation will advance the evidence on innovative approaches being used to meet these goals in the TechHire Partnership (TechHire) and Strengthening Working Families Initiative (SWFI) grant programs. The evaluation will include two components, an implementation study and an impact study.
The goal of the impact study is to provide rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used in the TechHire and SFWI grant programs. The impact study will consist of both a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a quasi-experimental design (QED) evaluation. Approximately five grantees will be selected to participate in an RCT. The QED will include all 53 TechHire and SWFI grantees and use the pooled RCT control group as the comparison group using propensity score matching. The QED will collect data from an existing wage record data. It will also use data from the implementation study (described below)
A key goal of the implementation study is to provide systematic information on all of the grantees and link the findings to impacts. For all 53 grantees, the implementation study will review grantee applications, conduct web-based surveys with grantees and partners, and conduct semi-structured telephone interviews with grantees and partners. Additionally, for the grantees in the RCT, the implementation study will include two rounds of field visits involving a mix of observations, interviews, and case file reviews. This will provide critical context for understanding the impact findings from the RCT.
In January 2018, OMB approved the baseline data collection for this evaluation (OMB 1290-0014), which includes a baseline information form (BIF), a 6-month follow-up participant survey, a participant tracking form, and a first round of site visit interviews. This
*
*
*
*
*
*
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the above data collection for the Evaluation of Strategies Use in the TechHire and SWFI programs. DOL is particularly interested in comments that do the following:
• 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.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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—for example, permitting electronic submission of responses.
At this time, DOL is requesting clearance for the implementation site visit protocols, the focus group protocols, and a grantee survey. A future information collection request will include an 18-month participant follow-up survey.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed.
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the collection of survey data for a study of the implementation of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before April 24, 2018.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Janet Javar by email at
WIOA, signed into law on July 22, 2014, authorized and amended a series of employment and educational programs under five titles. DOL seeks to understand how the implementation of WIOA is changing the core workforce programs authorized under Title I (Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs) and the Employment Service program authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act and amended by Title III, as well as how the implementation is contributing to more integration with stakeholders in programs authorized under Titles II (Adult Education and Literacy) and IV (Vocational Rehabilitation).
DOL is funding a study to document and describe how critical state-level activities under WIOA are being implemented and identify possible areas for which further technical assistance, guidance, or policies might be needed in order to help implement the law. The study's major research questions are: (1) How are the critical reforms under WIOA related to the core workforce programs for Title I and III being implemented? (2) to what extent is WIOA's vision for an integrated workforce system being achieved through state- and local-level synergies between Titles I and III and Titles II and IV stakeholders? and (3) what changes or supplemental technical assistance, guidance, or policy would be helpful to states administering the core programs and in providing guidance and oversight to the local level to improve service quality and management?
This
Currently, DOL is soliciting comments concerning the above data collection for the WIOA implementation study. DOL is particularly interested in comments that do the following:
• 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.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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- for example, permitting electronic submission of responses.
At this time, DOL is requesting clearance for a national survey of state workforce administrators.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA proposes to: (1) Delete a test standard from the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards; and (2) update the scopes of recognition of several NRTLs.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 26, 2018. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The NRTL Program recognizes organizations that provide product safety testing and certification services to manufacturers. These organizations perform testing and certification, for purposes of the Program, to U.S. consensus-based product safety test standards. The products covered by the NRTL Program consist of those items for which OSHA safety standards require “certification” by a NRTL. The requirements affect electrical products and 38 other types of products. OSHA does not develop or issue these test standards, but generally relies on standards development organizations (SDOs) which develop and maintain the standards using a method that provides input and consideration of views of industry groups, experts, users, consumers, governmental authorities and others having broad experience in the safety field involved.
OSHA may propose to remove a test standard from the NRTL list of appropriate test standards based on an internal review in which NRTL Program staff review the NRTL list of appropriate test standards to determine if the test standard conforms to the definition of
Second, a document that focuses primarily on usage, installation, or maintenance requirements would also not be considered an appropriate test standard (CPL 1-0.3, App. D.IV.B). In some cases, however, a document may also provide safety test specifications in addition to usage, installation, and maintenance requirements. In such cases, the document would be retained as an appropriate test standard based on the safety test specifications.
Finally, a document may not be considered an appropriate test standard if the document covers products for which OSHA does not require testing and certification (CPL 1-0.3, App. D.IV.A).
Similarly, a document that covers electrical product components would not be considered an appropriate test standard. These documents apply to types of components that have limitation(s) or condition(s) on their use, in that they are not appropriate for use as end-use products. These documents also specify that these types of components are for use only as part of an end-use product. NRTLs, however, evaluate such components only in the context of evaluating whether end-use products requiring NRTL approval are safe for use in the workplace. Testing such components alone would not indicate that the end-use products containing the components are safe for use. Accordingly, as a matter of policy, OSHA considers that documents covering such components are not appropriate test standards under the NRTL Program. OSHA notes, however, that it is not proposing to delete from NRTLs' scopes of recognition any test standards covering end-use products that contain such components.
In this notice, OSHA proposes to delete one test standard from the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards.
Table 1 lists the test standard that OSHA proposes to delete from the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards, as well as an abbreviated rationale for OSHA's proposed actions. For a full discussion of the rationale, see, above, Section I of this notice.
In this notice, OSHA proposes to update the scopes of recognition of several NRTLs. The tables in this section (Table 2 thru Table 4) list, for each affected NRTL, the test standard(s) that OSHA proposes to delete from the scope of recognition of the NRTL.
OSHA seeks comment on whether its proposed deletions are appropriate, and whether individual tables omit any appropriate replacement test standard that is comparable to a withdrawn test standard. If OSHA determines that it omitted any appropriate replacement test standard that is comparable to a withdrawn test standard, it will, in its final determination, incorporate that replacement test standard into the scope of recognition of each affected NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request, by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To obtain or review copies of comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials will also be available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health regarding the removal of one test standard from the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards and to update the scopes of recognition of several NRTLs. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC, for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this recognition.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 26, 2018.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that a NRTL test and certify certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace. NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for performing safety testing and certification of products used in the workplace. To obtain and retain OSHA recognition, the NRTLs must meet the requirements in the NRTL Program regulations at 29 CFR 1910.7. More specifically, to be recognized by OSHA, an organization must: (1) Have the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to assure their safe use in the workplace; (2) be completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and manufacturers and vendors of products for which OSHA requires certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper control of the testing and certification process; and (4) have effective reporting and complaint handling procedures. Recognition is an acknowledgement by OSHA that the NRTL has the capabilities to perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the NRTL's scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition of a NRTL by OSHA also allows employers to use products certified by that NRTL to meet those OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires OSHA to publish two notices in the
OSHA is providing notice that Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC, (ARL) is applying for recognition as a NRTL. According to its public information (see
Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for the applicable test standards within the NRTL's scope of recognition; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that the NRTL may use, each of which allows the NRTL to rely on other parties to perform activities necessary for testing and certification. ARL applied on March 5, 2014, for initial recognition as a NRTL. In its initial application, ARL requested recognition for two test standards, one site, and two supplemental programs (OSHA-2007-0083-0050). This application was amended on December 1, 2014 to add one additional test standard (OSHA-2007-0083-0051).
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found within ARL's application for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
The test standards listed above may be approved as U.S. test standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, the Agency may use the designations of the standards-developing organization for the test standards instead of the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard.
The current address of ARL's site included in its application for recognition as a NRTL is:
1. Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC, 5371 SW 161 Street, Miami, Florida 33014;
The NRTL Program requires that to be a recognized site, the site listed above must have the capability to conduct product testing in accordance with the appropriate test standard for the equipment or material being tested and certified.
The supplemental programs listed in ARL's application for recognition as a NRTL include the following items:
OSHA's NRTL Program recognition process involves a thorough analysis of a NRTL applicant's policies and procedures, and a comprehensive on-site review of the applicant's testing and certification activities to ensure that the applicant meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of ARL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed
Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that, for each specified item of equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted, the NRTL must have the capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities, trained staff, written testing procedures, and calibration and quality-control programs) to perform appropriate testing. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of ARL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its capabilities to perform testing and certification activities. OSHA preliminarily determined that ARL has demonstrated these capabilities through the following:
• ARL facility has adequate test areas, energy sources, and procedures for controlling incompatible activities.
• ARL provided a detailed list of its testing equipment. Review of the application shows that the equipment listed is available and adequate for the standards for which it seeks recognition.
• ARL has detailed procedures for conducting testing, review, and evaluation, and for capturing the test and other data required by the test standards for which it seeks recognition.
• ARL has detailed procedures addressing the maintenance and calibration of equipment, and the types of records maintained for, or supporting laboratory activities.
• ARL has sufficient qualified personnel to perform the proposed scope of testing based on their education, training, technical knowledge, and experience.
• ARL has an adequate quality-control system in place to conduct internal audits, as well as track and resolve nonconformances.
OSHA's on-site assessments of ARL's facility confirmed the capabilities described in its application packet. The assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. ARL addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the NRTL provide controls and services, to the extent necessary, for the particular equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted. These controls and services include procedures for identifying the listed or labeled equipment or materials, inspections of production runs at factories to assure conformance with test standards, and field inspections to monitor and assure the proper use of identifying marks or labels. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of ARL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its control procedures. OSHA preliminarily determined that ARL has demonstrated these capabilities through the following:
• ARL has a quality-control manual and detailed procedures to address the steps involved to list and certify products.
• ARL has a registered certification mark.
• ARL has certification procedures to address the authorization of certifications and audits of factory facilities. The audits apply to both the initial evaluations and the follow-up inspections of manufacturers' facilities.
OSHA's on-site assessment of ARL's facility confirmed the capabilities described in its application packet. The assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. ARL addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely independent of employers that are subject to the testing requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials tested under the NRTL Program. OSHA has a policy for the independence of NRTLs that specifies the criteria used for determining whether an organization meets the above requirement (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph V). This policy contains a non-exhaustive list of relationships that would cause an organization to fail to meet the specified criteria. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of ARL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its independence. OSHA preliminarily determined that ARL has demonstrated independence through the following:
• ARL is a privately-owned organization, and OSHA found no information regarding ownership that would qualify as a conflict under OSHA's independence policy.
• ARL shows that it has none of the relationships described in OSHA's independence policy or any other relationship that could subject it to undue influence when testing for product safety.
Section 1910.7(b)(4) specifies that a NRTL must maintain effective procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are objective and free of bias. The NRTL must also have procedures for handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of ARL's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its ability to produce credible results and handle complaints. OSHA preliminarily determined that ARL has demonstrated these capabilities through the following:
• ARL has detailed procedures describing the content of test reports, and other detailed procedures describing the preparation and approval of these reports.
• ARL has procedures for recording, analyzing, and processing complaints from users, manufacturers, and other parties in a fair manner.
OSHA's on-site assessments of ARL's facilities confirmed the capabilities described in its application packet. The assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. ARL addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation, as well as the results of the on-site assessments, indicate that ARL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory for its site located in Miami, Florida, with the condition that ARL agree to increased OSHA oversight of its operations including:
• More frequent on-site assessments of ARL facilities;
• ARL providing OSHA with periodic reports listing the products that have been certified under the NRTL Program; and
• Confirmation from ARL that products with ARL Listings (non-NRTL) will undergo re-evaluation and re-testing and/or a thorough documented review of previously gathered evaluation and testing results prior to NRTL certification.
OSHA's preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of ARL's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether ARL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
OSHA staff will review all comments submitted to the docket in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health regarding ARL's application for recognition as a NRTL. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Evening briefing to discuss the Expeditions award and forthcoming site visit.
Presentations by Awardee Institution, faculty staff and students, to Site Team and NSF Staff.
Discussions and question and answer sessions.
NSF Staff and Panelists deliberation.
Continued presentations by Awardee Institution. Response and feedback to presentations by Site Team and NSF Staff. Discussions and question and answer sessions. Draft report on education and research activities. Complete written site visit report with preliminary recommendations.
NSF Staff and Panelists working dinner.
Expeditions PIs responses to issues raised by panelists.
Panelists prepare site visit report.
Presentation of site visit report to Expeditions leadership team.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Weeks of February 26, March 5, 12, 19, 26, April 2, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 26, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 12, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 19, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 26, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or you may email
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Open meeting.
Cancellation of meeting.
The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. was cancelled.
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On December 20, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5745, which governs the listing and trading of Exchange-Traded Managed Fund Shares, as defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(1). The Fund is a series of Managed Portfolio Series and will be advised by an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), as described below.
The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, and is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. Personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non- public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund.
The Exchange represents that the Fund's investment objective is to outperform its benchmark, the Barclays Capital Intermediate Government/Credit Index, measured over an entire market cycle, while maintaining key risks (interest rate risk, credit risk, structure risk, and liquidity risk) similar to the benchmark. An entire market cycle refers to the broad economy transitioning from a peak in economic growth through a trough and back.
Under normal market conditions, the Reinhart Intermediate Bond NextShares will invest primarily in investment grade fixed income securities. The Fund considers a fixed income security to be investment grade if it is rated within the BBB-category or better by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services or the Baa3 category or better by Moody's Investors Services, Inc., or an equivalent rating by another nationally recognized statistical rating organization, or, if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality.
The Fund will normally invest within the intermediate term structure of the yield curve. The average-dollar weighted maturity of the securities in which the Fund expects to invest will generally range from 3 to 10 years. The Fund's investments in fixed income securities may include government or agency securities or obligations, corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, variable and floating rate securities, zero coupon bonds and collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”). Normally, the Reinhart Intermediate Bond NextShares will invest at least 80% of its total assets in fixed income securities.
Consistent with the disclosure requirements that apply to traditional open-end investment companies, a complete list of current Fund portfolio positions will be made available at least once each calendar quarter, with a reporting lag of not more than 60 days. The Fund may provide more frequent disclosures of portfolio positions at its discretion.
As defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(3), the Composition File is the specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will accept as a deposit in issuing a creation unit of Shares, and the specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will deliver in a redemption of a creation unit of Shares. The Composition File will be disseminated through the National Securities Clearing Corporation once each business day before the open of trading in Shares on such day and also will be made available to the public each day on a free website.
Each security included in the Composition File will be a current holding of the Fund, but the Composition File generally will not include all of the securities in the Fund's portfolio or match the weightings of the included securities in the portfolio. Securities that the Adviser is in the process of acquiring for the Fund generally will not be represented in the Fund's Composition File until the purchase has been completed. Similarly, securities that are held in the Fund's portfolio but in the process of being sold may not be removed from its Composition File until the sale program is substantially completed. To the extent that the Fund creates or redeems Shares in kind, it will use cash amounts to supplement the in-kind transactions to the extent necessary to ensure that creation units are purchased and redeemed at NAV. The Composition File also may consist entirely of cash, in which case it will not include any of the securities in the Fund's portfolio.
An estimated value of an individual Share, defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(2) as the “Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”),” will be calculated and disseminated at intervals of not more than 15 minutes throughout the Regular Market Session
The IIV for the Fund will be based on current information regarding the value of the securities and other assets held by the Fund.
Because Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange, Shares will be available for purchase and sale on an intraday basis. Shares will be purchased and sold in the secondary market at prices directly linked to the Fund's next-determined NAV using a trading protocol called “NAV-Based Trading.” All bids, offers and execution prices of Shares will be expressed as a premium/discount (which may be zero) to the Fund's next-determined NAV (
According to the Exchange, member firms will utilize certain existing order types and interfaces to transmit Share bids and offers to Nasdaq, which will process Share trades like trades in shares of other listed securities.
To avoid potential investor confusion, Nasdaq represents that it will work with member firms and providers of market data services to seek to ensure that representations of intraday bids, offers and execution prices of Shares that are
Alternatively, member firms may source intraday Share prices in proxy price format from the Consolidated Tape and other Nasdaq data feeds (
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Act
The Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5745, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Exchange-Traded Managed Fund Shares. A minimum of 50,000 Shares and no less than two creation units of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Every order to trade Shares of the Fund is subject to the proxy price protection threshold of plus/minus $1.00, which determines the lower and upper thresholds for the life of the order and provides that the order will be cancelled at any point if it exceeds $101.00 or falls below $99.00, the established thresholds.
Nasdaq also represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
Prior to the commencement of trading in the Fund, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares of the Fund. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation units (and noting that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the IIV and Composition File is disseminated; (d) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (e) information regarding NAV-Based Trading protocols.
The Information Circular also will identify the specific Nasdaq data feeds from which intraday Share prices in proxy price format may be obtained. As noted above, all orders to buy or sell Shares that are not executed on the day the order is submitted will be automatically cancelled as of the close of trading on such day, and the Information Circular will discuss the effect of this characteristic on existing order types. In addition, Nasdaq intends to provide its members with a detailed explanation of NAV-Based Trading through a Trader Alert issued prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange.
Nasdaq states that the Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, and is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. Personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission notes that once the Fund's daily NAV has been calculated and disseminated, Nasdaq will price each Share trade entered into during the day at the Fund's NAV plus/minus the trade's executed premium/discount. Using the final trade price, each executed Share trade will then be disseminated to member firms and market data services via a File Transfer Protocol (“FTP”) file to be created for exchange-traded managed funds and confirmed to the member firms participating in the trade to supplement the previously provided information to include final pricing.
The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily (on each business day the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading) and provided to Nasdaq via the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (“MFQS”) by the fund accounting agent. As soon as the NAV is entered into MFQS, Nasdaq will disseminate the NAV to market participants and market data vendors via the Mutual Fund Dissemination Service so all firms will receive the NAV per Share at the same time.
The Exchange further represents that it may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rule 4120 and in Nasdaq Rule 5745(d)(2)(C). Additionally, the Exchange may cease trading the Shares if other unusual conditions or circumstances exist that, in the opinion of the Exchange, make further dealings on the Exchange detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. To manage the risk of a non-regulatory Share trading halt, Nasdaq has in place back-up processes and procedures to ensure orderly trading. Prior to the commencement of market trading in Shares, the Fund will be required to establish and maintain a free public website through which its current prospectus may be downloaded.
The Exchange represents that all statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or intraday indicative values, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
The approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice. In particular, the Commission notes that, although the Shares will be available for purchase and sale on an intraday basis, the Shares will be purchased and sold at prices directly linked to the Fund's next-determined NAV. In addition, the Commission notes that the Fund will not invest in assets that have not been described in this proposed rule change. Further, the Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5745 and the conditions set forth in this proposed rule change to be listed and traded on the Exchange on an initial and continuing basis.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
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 Rule 100 to include Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series Program, including options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 100(a)(53) to amend Rule 100 to include Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series program (“Program”), including options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust.
The actual listing and trading of the options series included in the Program is governed by Chapter 5 (“Securities Traded on the Exchange”). Chapter 5 incorporates by reference the rules of Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”). ISE has already amended its Chapter 5 to list both Monday and Wednesday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options Series program; accordingly, the Exchange's Chapter 5 incorporates these changes by reference.
Currently, “Short Term Option Series” is defined as “a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Friday of the following business week that is a business day. If a Friday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Friday.” In order to include Wednesday expirations within this definition, the Exchange is amending Rule 100(a)(53) to include a series in an option class that is opened for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day and that expires the Wednesday of the following business week that is a business day. If a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
As noted above, ISE filed its proposal to amend its Rule 100 and Rule 504 to provide for the listing of Wednesday expirations
The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 100(a)(53) to permit the listing of options series that expire on Mondays (“Monday SPY Expirations”). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that it may open for trading series of options on any Monday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday of the following business week that is a business day. The Exchange is also proposing to list Monday expirations series on Fridays that precede the expiration Monday by one business week plus one business day. Since Rule 100(a)(53) already provides for the listing of short term option series on Fridays, the Exchange is not modifying this provision to allow for Friday listing of Monday expiration series. However, the Exchange is amending Rule 100(a)(53) to clarify that, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, that series must be listed one business week and one business day prior to that expiration (
The Exchange notes that having Monday expirations is not a novel proposal. Specifically, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx”) recently received approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options Series program.
As part of this proposal, the Exchange is also amending Rule 100(a)(53) to address the expiration of Monday expiration series when the Monday is not a business day. In that case, the rule will provide that the series shall expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday. This procedure
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday SPY Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations. Specifically, the Monday SPY Expirations will have a $0.50 strike interval minimum. As is the case with other options series listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series, the Monday SPY Expiration series will be P.M.-settled.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class. The thirty (30) series restriction does not include series that are open by other securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules; the Exchange may list these additional series that are listed by other exchanges. This thirty (30) series restriction shall apply to Monday SPY Expiration series as well. In addition, the Exchange will be able to list series that are listed by other exchanges, assuming they file similar rules with the Commission to list SPY options expiring on Mondays.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Monday expirations. The Exchange has the necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday expiration series, including Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire almost every Wednesday and Friday, which provide market participants a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe that there are any material differences between Monday expirations and Wednesday or Friday expirations for Short Term Option Series.
The Exchange seeks to introduce Monday expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that Monday expirations, similar to Wednesday and Friday expirations, will allow market participants to purchase an option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
As noted above, Phlx recently received approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options program. In addition, other exchanges currently permit Monday expirations for other options. For example, Cboe lists options on the SPX with a Monday expiration as part of its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series program has been successful to date and that Monday expirations, including Monday SPY Expirations, simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday expirations, including Monday SPY Expirations, should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and will provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more effectively. As noted above, Phlx recently received approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options program. In addition, Cboe currently permits Monday expirations for other options with a weekly expiration, such as options on the SPX.
With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe that there are any material differences between Monday expirations, including Monday SPY expirations, and Wednesday or Friday expirations, including Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, for Short Term Option Series. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to treat Monday expiration series that expire on a holiday differently than Wednesday or Friday expiration series, since the proposed treatment for Monday expiration series will result in an expiration date that is closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the series, and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market conditions. The Exchange also notes that Cboe uses the same procedure for SPX options with Monday expirations that are listed pursuant to its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program and that are scheduled to expire on a holiday.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 100(a)(53) to include Wednesday expirations are also consistent with the Act. As noted above, while the actual listing and trading of the options series that are included in the Short Term Option Series are governed by Chapter 5, which incorporates ISE Chapter 5 by reference, Chapter 1 does not have similar incorporation by reference. As such, this change will amend Rule 100(a)(53) to make that rule consistent with the changes made to Chapter 5 as a result of that incorporation by reference.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading
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 notes that having Monday expirations is not a novel proposal, as Phlx has received approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options, and Cboe currently lists and trades short-term SPX options with a Monday expiration. The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner under this proposal. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade short-term options series with Monday expirations. The Exchange does not believe that changing Rule 100(a)(53) to include Wednesday expirations will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Commission approved the listing and trading of short term options series with Wednesday expirations in 2016, and the majority of the options exchanges have subsequently adopted short-term options series with Wednesday expirations.
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, the proposed rule change 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 from 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 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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 100 to include Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series Program, including options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 100(a)(53) to amend Rule 100 to include Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series program (“Program”), including options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust.
The actual listing and trading of the options series included in the Program is governed by Chapter 5 (“Securities Traded on the Exchange”). Chapter 5 incorporates by reference the rules of Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”). ISE has already amended its Chapter 5 to list both Monday and Wednesday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options Series program; accordingly, the Exchange's Chapter 5 incorporates these changes by reference.
Currently, “Short Term Option Series” is defined as “a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Friday of the following business week that is a business day. If a Friday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Friday.” In order to include Wednesday expirations within this definition, the Exchange is amending Rule 100(a)(53) to include a series in an option class that is opened for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day and that expires the Wednesday of the following business week that is a business day. If a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
As noted above, ISE filed its proposal to amend its Rule 100 and Rule 504 to provide for the listing of Wednesday expirations
The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 100(a)(53) to permit the listing of options series that expire on Mondays (“Monday SPY Expirations”). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that it may open for trading series of options on any Monday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday of the following business week that is a business day. The Exchange is also proposing to list Monday expirations series on Fridays that precede the expiration Monday by one business week plus one business day. Since Rule 100(a)(53) already provides for the listing of short term option series on Fridays, the Exchange is not modifying this provision to allow for Friday listing of Monday expiration series. However, the Exchange is amending Rule 100(a)(53) to clarify that, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, that series must be listed one business week and one business day prior to that expiration (
The Exchange notes that having Monday expirations is not a novel proposal. Specifically, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx”) recently received approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options Series program.
As part of this proposal, the Exchange is also amending Rule 100(a)(53) to address the expiration of Monday expiration series when the Monday is not a business day. In that case, the rule will provide that the series shall expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday. This procedure differs from the expiration date of Wednesday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday. In that case, the Wednesday expiration series shall expire on the first business day immediately prior to that Wednesday,
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday SPY Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations. Specifically, the Monday SPY Expirations will have a $0.50 strike interval minimum. As is the case with other options series listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series, the Monday SPY Expiration series will be P.M.-settled.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class. The thirty (30) series restriction does not include series that are open by other securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules; the Exchange may list these additional series that are listed by other exchanges. This thirty (30) series restriction shall apply to Monday SPY Expiration series as well. In addition, the Exchange will be able to list series that are listed by other exchanges, assuming they file similar rules with the Commission to list SPY options expiring on Mondays.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Monday expirations. The Exchange has the necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday expiration series, including Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire almost every Wednesday and Friday, which provide market participants a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe that there are any material differences between Monday expirations and Wednesday or Friday expirations for Short Term Option Series.
The Exchange seeks to introduce Monday expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that Monday expirations, similar to Wednesday and Friday expirations, will allow market participants to purchase an option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
As noted above, Phlx recently received approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options program. In addition, other exchanges currently permit Monday expirations for other options. For example, Cboe lists options on the SPX with a Monday expiration as part of its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series program has been successful to date and that Monday expirations, including Monday SPY Expirations, simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday expirations, including Monday SPY Expirations, should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and will provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more effectively. As noted above, Phlx recently received approval to list Monday expirations for SPY options pursuant to its Short Terms Options program. In addition, Cboe currently permits Monday expirations for other options with a weekly expiration, such as options on the SPX.
With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe that there are any material differences between Monday expirations, including Monday SPY expirations, and Wednesday or Friday expirations, including Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, for Short Term Option Series. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to treat Monday expiration series that expire on a holiday differently than Wednesday or Friday expiration series, since the proposed treatment for Monday expiration series will result in an expiration date that is closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the series, and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market conditions. The Exchange also notes that Cboe uses the same procedure for SPX options with Monday expirations that are listed pursuant to its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program and that are scheduled to expire on a holiday.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 100(a)(53) to include Wednesday expirations are also consistent with the Act. As noted above, while the actual listing and trading of the options series that are included in the Short Term Option Series are governed by Chapter 5, which incorporates ISE Chapter 5 by reference, Chapter 1 does not have similar incorporation by reference. As such, this change will amend Rule 100(a)(53) to make that rule consistent with the changes made to Chapter 5 as a result of that incorporation by reference.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday expirations, including Monday SPY Expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
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, the proposed rule change 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 from 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 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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments 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. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-07 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to expand the Short Term Options Series Program to allow Monday expirations for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (“SPY”) options.
(a) With respect to the Rules contained in Chapters XVI to XXIX below, relating to the trading of options contracts on the Exchange, the following terms shall have the meanings specified in this Rule. A term defined elsewhere in the Exchange Rules shall have the same meaning with respect to this Chapter XVI, unless otherwise defined below.
(1)-(56) (No change).
(57) The term “Short Term Option Series” means a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any
(58)-(63) (No change).
Interpretations and Policies
.01 (No change).
(a)-(g) (No change).
.01-.04 (No change).
.05 After an option class has been approved for listing and trading on BZX Options, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (“Short Term Option Opening Date”) series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five (5) Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Short Term Option Expiration Dates, not including any
(a) (No change).
(b) With the exception of
(c)-(f) (No change).
(g)
.06-.07 (No change).
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 expand the Short Term Options Series Program described in Rule 19.6 to allow the listing and trading of SPY options with Monday expirations. The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to the definition of Short Term Options Series in Rule 16.1. This is a competitive filing based on a filing submitted by Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), which the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) recently approved.
Currently, as set forth in Rule 16.1(a)(57), a Short Term Option Series is a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Wednesday or Friday of the next business week. The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 16.1(a)(57) to permit the listing of options series that expire on Mondays. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that it may open for trading series of options on any Monday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday of the next business week. The Exchange also proposes to list Monday expirations series on Fridays that precede the expiration Monday by one business week plus one business day. Since Rule 16.1(a)(57) already provides for the listing of short term option series on Fridays, the Exchange is not modifying this provision to allow for Friday listing of Monday expiration series. However, the Exchange is amending Rule 16.1(a)(57) to clarify that, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, that series must be listed one business week and one business day prior to that expiration (
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 16.1(a)(57) to address the expiration of Monday expiration series when the Monday is not a business day. In that case, the rule will provide that the series will expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday. This procedure differs from the expiration date of the Wednesday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday. In that case, the Wednesday expiration series will expire on the first business day immediately prior to that Wednesday (
The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .05, which sets forth the requirements for SPY options that are listed pursuant to the Short Term Options Series Program, to permit Monday SPY expirations (“Monday SPY Expirations”). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .05(g) to state the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day series of SPY options to expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday on which Quarterly Options Series expire, provided that Monday SPY Expirations that are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day prior to the expiration.
As with Wednesday SPY Expirations, the proposed rule change states the Exchange may list up to five consecutive Monday SPY Expirations at one time, and may have no more than a total of five Monday SPY Expirations (in addition to a maximum of five Short Term Options Series expirations for SPY options expiring on Friday and five Wednesday SPY Expirations). The Exchange proposes to clarify that the five expirations limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program would not include any Monday SPY Expirations. The five expirations limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program currently excludes any Wednesday SPY Expirations. This means, under the proposed rule change, the Exchange may list five Short Term Option Series expirations for SPY expiring on Friday, five Wednesday SPY Expirations, and five Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange will also clarify that, as with Wednesday SPY Expirations, Monday SPY Expirations will be subject to the provisions of Rule 19.6.
The proposed rule change also amends Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .05(b), which addresses the listing of Short Term Option Series that expire in the same week as monthly or quarterly options series. Currently, the rule states no Short Term Option Series may expire in the same week in which monthly option series on the same class expire (with the exception of Wednesday SPY Expirations) or, in the case of Quarterly Option Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of Quarterly Option Series on the same class. As with Wednesday SPY Expirations, the Exchange proposes to permit Monday SPY Expirations to expire in the same week as monthly option series on the same class. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to extend this exemption to Monday SPY Expirations because Monday SPY Expirations and standard monthly options will not expire on the same trading day, as standard monthly options expire on Fridays. Additionally, the Exchange believes that not listing Monday SPY Expirations for one week every month because there was a monthly SPY expiration on the Friday of that week would create investor confusion.
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday SPY Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, which is a $0.50 strike interval minimum.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange is limited to opening 30 series for each expiration date for the specific class. The 30 series restriction does not include series that are opened by other securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules; the Exchange may list these additional series that are listed by other exchanges.
As is the case with other options series listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series, the Monday SPY Expiration series will be p.m.-settled. The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of p.m.-settled Monday expirations. The Exchange has necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday expiration series, including Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange currently trades p.m.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire almost every Wednesday and Friday, which provide market participants with a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange notes it has been listing Wednesday expirations since 2016. With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe there are any material differences between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday or Friday SPY Expirations.
The Exchange seeks to introduce Monday SPY Expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes Monday SPY Expirations, similar to Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, will allow market participants to purchase a SPY option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
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, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been successful to date and that Monday SPY Expirations simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way the Short Term Option Series Program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday SPY Expirations should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and will provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more effectively. With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe there are any material differences between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday or Friday SPY Expirations. The Exchange has been listing Wednesday SPY Expirations pursuant to Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .05 since 2016. The Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to treat Monday SPY Expirations that expire on a holiday differently than Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, since the proposed treatment for Monday SPY Expirations will result in an expiration date that is closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the series, and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market conditions. Cboe Options uses the same procedure for broad-based index options with Monday expirations listed pursuant the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program that are scheduled to expire on a holiday.
Given the similarities between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, the Exchange believes applying the provisions in Rules 16.1(a)(57) and 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .05 that currently apply to Wednesday SPY Expirations to Monday SPY Expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes allowing Monday SPY Expirations and monthly SPY expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday SPY Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not permit Monday SPY Expirations to expire on the same day as an expiration of SPY Quarterly Option Series. This is consistent with treatment of Wednesday SPY Expirations, which may currently expire in the same week as a monthly SPY expiration but may not expire on the same day as an expiration of SPY Quarterly Option Series.
The Exchange represents it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday SPY Expirations in the same way it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange also represents it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.
The proposed rule change is consistent with current rules of another options exchange, pursuant to which Cboe Options currently lists Monday expirations for weekly broad-based index options.
BZX 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. Having Monday expirations is not a novel proposal, as Cboe Options currently lists weekly broad-based index options with
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change 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 from 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 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 proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 609 (17 CFR 230.609) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
There has not been a Form 2-E filing since calendar year 2010, when there was one filing of Form 2-E by one respondent. The Commission has previously estimated that the total annual burden associated with information collection and Form 2-E preparation and submission is four hours per filing. Although there have been no filings made under this rule since 2010, we are requesting one annual response and an annual burden of one hour for administrative purposes. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 609 and Form 2-E is mandatory. The information provided under rule 609 and Form 2-E will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standard for warrants as set forth in Section 105 of the NYSE American Company Guide (the “Company Guide”) to provide that any reduction in the exercise price of a listed warrant must be widely publicized and must continue in effect for at least 20 business days
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standard for warrants as set forth in Section 105 of the Company Guide to provide that any reduction in the exercise price of a listed warrant must be widely publicized and must continue in effect for at least 20 business days (or such longer period as may be required under the tender offer rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”)) and otherwise comply with any other applicable tender offer regulatory provisions under the federal securities laws, including Section 13(e) of the Act and Rule 13e-4 under the Act.
Section 105 currently provides that the issuer of a listed warrant may reduce the exercise price of such warrant provided that in doing so it establishes a minimum period of ten business days within which such price reduction will be in effect.
A reduction in the exercise price of publicly-traded warrants for a limited time period is deemed to be a tender offer by the SEC staff and is therefore subject to the requirements of the SEC's tender offer rules as set forth in Regulation 14E under the Act.
The Exchange proposes to require the issuer of any warrant which gives the issuer the right, at its discretion, to reduce the exercise price of the warrant for periods of time, or from time to time, to undertake to comply with any applicable tender offer regulatory provisions under the federal securities laws, including a minimum period of 20 business days within which such price reduction will be in effect (or such longer period as may be required under the SEC's tender offer rules). In addition to ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the Exchange believes that the proposed 20 business day minimum notice requirement would ensure that warrant holders have a reasonable amount of time to consider the advisability of exercising their warrants during the period in which the reduced exercise price is in effect and that warrant holders will therefore not be under unreasonable pressure to make a hasty, ill-informed investment decision.
The Exchange proposes to require that any listed company that reduces the exercise price of listed warrants announce that fact in a manner consistent with the Exchange's policies with respect to the dissemination of material news as set forth in Sections 401 and 402 of the Company Guide. The Exchange believes that this requirement would give all warrant holders appropriate notice and the ability to avail themselves of the lower exercise price if they so desire.
The Exchange has interpreted the provision with respect to repricings in Section 105 broadly as restricting the taking of any other action which has the same economic effect as a reduction in the exercise price of the warrant.
Section 105 currently provides that the repricing policy set forth therein will not preclude the listing of warrant issues for which regularly scheduled and specified changes in the exercise price have been previously established. The Exchange proposes to clarify this provisions by specifying that it relates specifically to regularly scheduled and specified changes in the exercise price that have been previously established at the time of original issuance of the warrants.
The Exchange also proposes to make revisions to Section 105 to update references to the names of the Exchange and the NASDAQ Stock Exchange to reflect their current names.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) because: (i) The proposed requirement that the price reduction must stay in effect for 20 business days or such longer period as required by the SEC's tender offer rules would give the warrant holders a reasonable amount of time to consider the advisability of exercising their warrants during the period in which the reduced exercise price was in effect and warrant holders would therefore not be under unreasonable pressure to make a hasty, ill-informed investment decision; and (ii) the proposed requirement that any listed company that reduces the exercise price of listed warrants must announce that fact in a manner consistent with the Exchange's material news dissemination policies would give all warrant holders appropriate notice and the ability to avail themselves of the lower exercise price if they so desired.
The requirement that any warrant repricing under the proposed amendment must be held open for at least 20 business days (or such longer period as is required under the SEC's tender offer rules) and that the company must undertake to comply with applicable tender offer regulatory provisions would ensure that any warrant repricing under the proposed amendment would be in compliance with Section 13(e) of the Act, Rule 13e-4 under the Act, Section 14(e) of the Act, and Regulation 14E under the Act.
The addition to the rule of language stating that the Exchange will apply its requirements with respect to warrant re-pricings to the taking of any other action that has the same economic effect as a reduction in the exercise price of a listed warrant is consistent with the Act as it simply codifies a longstanding interpretation of the rule by the Exchange.
The amendment to the rule to specify that the repricing provision is not applicable to regularly scheduled and specified changes in the exercise price that have been previously established at the time of original issuance of the warrants is a clarification of the rule that is consistent with the way it is currently implemented and is therefore non-substantive in nature. Similarly, the updating of the names used in the rule for NYSE American and the NASDAQ Stock Market is non-substantive in nature.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to impose additional limitations on the circumstances under which listed companies may adjust the exercise price of listed warrants, including by requiring any such repricing to be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the SEC's tender offer rules. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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 expand the Short Term Options Series Program to allow Monday expirations for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (“SPY”) options.
(a) With respect to the Rules contained in Chapters XVI to XXIX below, relating to the trading of options contracts on the Exchange, the following terms shall have the meanings specified in this Rule. A term defined elsewhere in the Exchange Rules shall have the same meaning with respect to this Chapter XVI, unless otherwise defined below.
(1)-(56) (No change).
(57) The term “Short Term Option Series” means a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any
(58)-(63) (No change).
.01 (No change).
(a)-(g) (No change).
.01-.04 (No change).
.05 After an option class has been approved for listing and trading on EDGX Options, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (“Short Term Option Opening Date”) series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five (5) Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Short Term Option Expiration Dates, not including any
(a) (No change).
(b) With the exception of
(c)-(f) (No change).
(g)
.06-.07 (No change).
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 expand the Short Term Options Series Program described in Rule 19.6 to allow the listing and trading of SPY options with Monday expirations. The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to the definition of Short Term Options Series in Rule 16.1. This is a competitive filing based on a filing submitted by Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), which the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) recently approved.
Currently, as set forth in Rule 16.1(a)(57), a Short Term Option Series is a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Wednesday or Friday of the next business week. The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 16.1(a)(57) to permit the listing of options series that expire on Mondays. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that it may open for trading series of options on any Monday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday of the next business week. The Exchange also proposes to list Monday expirations series on Fridays that precede the expiration Monday by one business week plus one business day. Since Rule 16.1(a)(57) already provides for the listing of short term option series on Fridays, the Exchange is not modifying this provision to allow for Friday listing of Monday expiration series. However, the Exchange is amending Rule 16.1(a)(57) to clarify that, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, that series must be listed one business week and one business day prior to that expiration (
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 16.1(a)(57) to address the expiration of Monday expiration series when the Monday is not a business day. In that case, the rule will provide that the series will expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday. This procedure differs from the expiration date of the Wednesday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday. In that case, the Wednesday expiration series will expire on the first business day immediately prior to that Wednesday (
The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .05, which sets forth the requirements for SPY options that are listed pursuant to the Short Term Options Series Program, to permit Monday SPY expirations (“Monday SPY Expirations”). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .05(g) to state the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day series of SPY options to expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday on which Quarterly Options Series expire, provided that Monday SPY Expirations that are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day prior to the expiration.
As with Wednesday SPY Expirations, the proposed rule change states the Exchange may list up to five consecutive Monday SPY Expirations at one time, and may have no more than a total of five Monday SPY Expirations (in addition to a maximum of five Short Term Options Series expirations for SPY options expiring on Friday and five Wednesday SPY Expirations). The Exchange proposes to clarify that the five expirations limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program would not include any Monday SPY Expirations. The five expirations limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program currently excludes any Wednesday SPY Expirations. This means, under the proposed rule change, the Exchange may list five Short Term Option Series expirations for SPY expiring on Friday, five Wednesday SPY Expirations, and five Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange will also clarify that, as with Wednesday SPY Expirations, Monday SPY Expirations will be subject to the provisions of Rule 19.6.
The proposed rule change also amends Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .05(b), which addresses the listing of Short Term Option Series that expire in the same week as monthly or quarterly options series. Currently, the rule states no Short Term Option Series may expire in the same week in which monthly option series on the same class expire (with the exception of Wednesday SPY Expirations) or, in the case of Quarterly Option Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of Quarterly Option Series on the same class. As with Wednesday SPY Expirations, the Exchange proposes to permit Monday SPY Expirations to expire in the same week as monthly option series on the same class. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to extend this exemption to Monday SPY Expirations because Monday SPY Expirations and standard monthly options will not expire on the same trading day, as standard monthly options expire on Fridays. Additionally, the Exchange believes that not listing Monday SPY Expirations for one week every month because there was a monthly SPY expiration on the Friday of that week would create investor confusion.
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday SPY Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, which is a $0.50 strike interval minimum.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange is limited to opening 30 series for each expiration date for the specific class. The 30 series restriction does not include series that are opened by other securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules; the Exchange may list these additional series that are listed by other exchanges.
As is the case with other options series listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series, the Monday SPY Expiration series will be p.m.-settled. The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of p.m.-settled Monday expirations. The Exchange has necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday expiration series, including Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange currently trades p.m.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire almost every Wednesday and Friday, which provide market participants with a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange notes it has been listing Wednesday expirations since 2016. With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe there are any material differences between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday or Friday SPY Expirations.
The Exchange seeks to introduce Monday SPY Expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes Monday SPY Expirations, similar to Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, will allow market participants to purchase a SPY option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
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, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been successful to date and that Monday SPY Expirations simply expand
Given the similarities between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, the Exchange believes applying the provisions in Rules 16.1(a)(57) and 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .05 that currently apply to Wednesday SPY Expirations to Monday SPY Expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes allowing Monday SPY Expirations and monthly SPY expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday SPY Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not permit Monday SPY Expirations to expire on the same day as an expiration of SPY Quarterly Option Series. This is consistent with treatment of Wednesday SPY Expirations, which may currently expire in the same week as a monthly SPY expiration but may not expire on the same day as an expiration of SPY Quarterly Option Series.
The Exchange represents it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday SPY Expirations in the same way it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange also represents it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.
The proposed rule change is consistent with current rules of another options exchange, pursuant to which Cboe Options currently lists Monday expirations for weekly broad-based index options.
EDGX 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. Having Monday expirations is not a novel proposal, as Cboe Options currently lists weekly broad-based index options with Monday expirations pursuant to its nonstandard expirations pilot program. EDGX Options does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner as they are with respect to existing Short Term Option Series. EDGX Options does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as Phlx recently received Commission approval to list Monday SPY Expirations.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change 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 from 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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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”),
ICE Clear Europe proposes to implement a new F&O Concentration Charge Policy (the “Policy”), which will replace separate existing concentration charge policies for its energy and its financials and softs products.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe proposes to adopt the Policy, which will implement a new concentration charge margin model that will apply to all F&O Contracts, in both the energy and financials and softs (“F&S”) sectors. ICEU currently uses two separate concentration charge models: One for energy products and one for F&S products. The existing concentration models and their associated policies will be retired upon implementation of the Policy. The concentration charge model is designed to provide the Clearing House with extra margin to cover the potential additional default costs where liquidation of a defaulter's positions may be delayed or prolonged due to highly concentrated positions within the defaulter's portfolio.
The new Policy is largely based on the existing concentration charge model applicable to F&S products, and as a result it is expected only marginally to impact margin for F&S products. The new Policy adds a few enhancements to the existing F&S model. Specifically, certain technical detail from the F&S model will be enhanced such that the concentration charge will no longer be calculated as a multiple of total SPAN initial margin, but instead as a multiple of individual margin component (
The new Policy marks a more significant methodology change for energy products, and may more significantly increase concentration charges for those products. The existing energy concentration charge model is based on the percentage share of each clearing member's initial margin to the total clearing house initial margin, while the new Policy (like the existing F&S policy) is based on the clearing member's position relative to the perceived level of market depth as represented by the daily trading volume in the relevant products. ICE Clear Europe believes that the new Policy will provide a more robust approach to measuring concentration risk, based on expected cost and time of liquidation, and to imposing additional margin charges as a result.
The Policy itself sets out the key steps and procedures for calculating the concentration charge for F&O contracts. Calculations are made for each underlying commodity and each relevant expiration period. The Policy operates by scaling the initial margin requirement upward by extending the holding or liquidation period beyond the margin period of risk used in the standard margin calculation, to account for the longer time it is expected to take the Clearing House to liquidate the positions in light of the average daily trading volume in the product. The concentration charge is thus designed to reflect the portion of the defaulter's position expected to be remaining after the margin period of risk. The Policy uses a concentration charge scaling formula that takes into account these considerations. The final concentration charge takes into account both an outright position scanning range calculation and an intermonth (calendar spread) position calculation.
The Policy sets out additional operational steps related to determining concentration charges, including weekly calculations and reports to members regarding their concentration charge percentages per underlying, per Clearing Member and on an account level. Additional detail can be provided to Clearing Members upon request. Parameters for the model are reviewed on an ongoing basis in conjunction with the charge calculation cycle and through a quarterly formal review of all parameters, where the latest market statistics are used to assess their adequacy.
The Policy also incorporates an overall Board risk appetite and limit framework, which is consistent with other ICE Clear Europe policies, based on ICE Clear Europe's corporate objectives and risk objectives as established by the Board. The Policy also addresses governance and reporting, including independent validation, policy review and exception handling. Relevant models used to support the Policy are subject to an annual independent validation and governance oversight. The Policy addresses review and oversight by the policy owner, as well as escalation and notification protocols. The Policy will be reviewed by the F&O Risk Committee and Board at least annually. At a minimum, any material changes will be discussed by the ICE Clear Europe executive risk committee and approved by the Board (on the advice of the F&O Risk Committee and Board Risk Committee). Material deviations are reported to the ICE Clear Europe President and the risk oversight department to determine the appropriate governance escalation and notification requirements.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii)
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are being proposed in order to more appropriately manage concentration risks in the portfolios of Clearing Members, and ensure that ICE Clear Europe imposes sufficient concentration charges to cover the potential liquidation risks arising from concentrated portfolios. The revised approach may result in increased concentration charges for F&O Clearing Member, particularly those with concentrated energy portfolios, and so may increase the cost of clearing for those Clearing Members. However, ICE Clear Europe believes that any such additional cost is appropriate to take into account the concentration risk posed to the Clearing House by such Clearing Members, consistent with the provisions of the Act and Commission regulations relating to margin requirements and methodologies as discussed above. The Policy will apply to all F&O Clearing Members, and such Clearing Members will be able to manage their positions to limit potential concentration charges if they so choose. ICE Clear Europe does not believe that
Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
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.
All comments 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. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-004 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.11 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to provide that Acquisition Companies remaining listed after consummation of their Business Combination will not be required to pay listing fees in relation to any additional shares issued in connection with the consummation of the Business Combination. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Section 102.06 of the Manual provides for the listing of companies (“Acquisition Companies” or “ACs”) with no prior operating history that conduct an initial public offering of which at least 90% of the proceeds, together with the proceeds of any other concurrent sales of the AC's equity securities, will be held in a trust account controlled by an independent custodian until consummation of a business combination in the form of a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
In the experience of the Exchange, an AC will frequently reconsider its listing venue in connection with the consummation of its Business Combination.
The market for the retention or transfer to another exchange of these companies is very competitive and a number of transfers to a new listing venue have occurred in recent times in connection with the completion of an AC's Business Combination. The listing rules of the Exchange,
To eliminate this disparate treatment of companies listing after a Business Combination, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.11 of the Manual to provide that any AC remaining listed on the Exchange upon consummation of its Business Combination will not be subject to any additional listing fees with respect to any shares issued in connection with such Business Combination.
The Exchange does not expect the revenues it forgoes as a result of the proposed waiver to negatively affect its ability to conduct its regulatory program.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it represents an equitable allocation of fees and does not unfairly discriminate among listed companies. In particular, the Exchange notes that the proposed amendment is not unfairly discriminatory as it will result in an AC that remains listed on the Exchange after its Business Combination being treated the same as an AC that transfers to the Exchange from another listing venue or transfers to another listing venue at that time. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is not discriminatory with respect to listed operating companies, as operating companies generally do not have an event in their life cycle parallel to the Business Combination for an AC which would normally give rise to a reconsideration of the company's listing venue.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition, as it will have the effect of treating an AC that remains listed on the Exchange after its Business Combination the same for fee purposes as an AC that transfers to the Exchange from another listing venue or transfers to another listing venue at that time.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Options Series Program to allow Monday expirations for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (“SPY”) options.
(a)-(c) (No change).
(d) Short Term Option Series Program. After an option class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (“Short Term Option Opening Date”) series of options on that class that expire at the close of business on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays on which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Short Term Option Expiration Dates.
References to “Short Term Option Series” below shall be read to include “
Regarding Short Term Option Series:
(1) (No change).
(2) No Short Term Option Series (excluding
(3)-(6) (No change).
Related non-Short Term Option series shall be opened during the month prior to expiration in the same manner as permitted in Rule 5.5(d) and in the same strike price intervals that are permitted in this Rule 5.5(d)(5).
(e) No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01-.23 (No change).
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 expand the Short Term Options Series Program described in Rule 5.5(d) to allow the listing and trading of SPY options with Monday expirations. This is a competitive filing based on a filing submitted by Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), which the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) recently approved.
Currently, under the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange may open for trading on Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five Fridays, provided that such Friday is not a Friday on which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Series”). Additionally, the Exchange may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day (“Wednesday SPY Expiration Opening Date”) series of options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (“SPY”) that expire at the close of business on each of the next five Wednesdays that are business days and are not Wednesdays on which Quarterly Options Series expire (“Wednesday SPY Expirations”). The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 5.5(d) to permit the listing of SPY options expiring on Mondays. Specifically, Cboe Options is proposing that it may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day (“Monday SPY Expiration Opening Date”), provided that any Monday SPY Expiration Opening Date that is a Friday is one business week and one business day prior to expiration (
The proposed rule change also addresses the expiration of SPY Monday Expirations when the expiration Monday is not a business day. In that case, the rule provides the expiration date for a Monday SPY Expiration will be the first business day immediately following that Monday. This procedure differs from the expiration date of Wednesday SPY Expirations that are scheduled to expire on a holiday. In that case, the Wednesday SPY Expiration will expire on the first business day immediately prior to that Wednesday,
As with Wednesday SPY Expirations, the proposed rule change states the Exchange may list up to five consecutive Monday SPY Expirations at one time, and may have no more than a total of five Monday SPY Expirations (in addition to a maximum of five Short Term Options Series expirations for SPY options expiring on Friday and five Wednesday SPY Expirations).
The Exchange proposes to clarify that the five expirations limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program would not include any Monday SPY Expirations. The five expirations limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program currently excludes any Wednesday SPY Expirations. This means, under the proposed rule change, the Exchange may list five Short Term Option Series expirations for SPY expiring on Friday, five Wednesday SPY Expirations, and five Monday SPY Expirations. The proposed rule change also notes references to “Short Term Option Series” in Rule 5.5(d) will, with Wednesday SPY Expirations, be read to include Monday SPY Expirations, except where indicated otherwise.
The proposed rule change also amends Rule 5.5(d)(2), which addresses the listing of Short Term Option Series
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday SPY Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, which is a $0.50 strike interval minimum.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Program, the Exchange is limited to opening 30 series for each expiration date for the specific class. The 30 series restriction does not include series that are opened by other securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules; the Exchange may list these additional series that are listed by other exchanges.
As is the case with other options series listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series, the Monday SPY Expiration series will be p.m.-settled. The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of p.m.-settled Monday expirations. The Exchange has necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday expiration series, including Monday SPY Expirations. The Exchange currently trades p.m.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire almost every Wednesday and Friday, which provide market participants with a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange notes it has been listing Wednesday expirations since 2016. With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe there are any material differences between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday or Friday SPY Expirations.
The Exchange seeks to introduce Monday SPY Expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes Monday SPY Expirations, similar to Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, will allow market participants to purchase a SPY option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
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, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been successful to date and that Monday SPY Expirations simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way the Short Term Option Series Program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday SPY Expirations should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and will provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more effectively. With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, the Exchange does not believe there are any material differences between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday or Friday SPY Expirations. The Exchange has been listing Wednesday SPY Expirations pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) since 2016. The Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to treat Monday SPY Expirations that expire on a holiday differently than Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, since the proposed treatment for Monday SPY Expirations will result in an expiration date that is closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the series, and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market conditions. The Exchange uses the same procedure for broad-based index options with Monday expirations listed pursuant the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program that are scheduled to expire on a holiday.
Given the similarities between Monday SPY Expirations and Wednesday and Friday SPY Expirations, the Exchange believes applying the provisions in Rule 5.5(d)(2) that currently apply to Wednesday SPY Expirations to Monday SPY Expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes allowing Monday SPY Expirations and monthly SPY expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday SPY Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not permit Monday SPY Expirations to expire on the same day as an expiration of SPY Quarterly Option Series. This is consistent with treatment of Wednesday SPY Expirations, which may currently expire in the same week as a monthly
The Exchange represents it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday SPY Expirations in the same way it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange also represents it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.
The proposed rule change is consistent with current Rules, pursuant to which Cboe Options currently lists Monday expirations for weekly broad-based index options.
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. Having Monday expirations is not a novel proposal, as Cboe Options currently lists weekly broad-based index options with Monday expirations pursuant to the nonstandard expirations pilot program. Cboe Options does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner as they are with respect to existing Short Term Option Series. Cboe Options does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as Phlx recently received Commission approval to list Monday SPY Expirations.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change 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 from 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 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.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Dead Sea Scrolls: The Exhibition,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Denver, Colorado, from on or about March 15, 2018, until on or about September 2, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
The action of the United States in this matter, and the immunity based on the application of the provisions of law involved, does not imply any view of the United States concerning the ownership of the exhibit objects.
Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
December 1-31, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312,
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and § 806.22 (f) for the time period specified above:
1. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: EmpetD P1, ABR-201211007.R1, Harford Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: December 5, 2017.
2. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: WoodE P1, ABR-201211008.R1, Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: December 5, 2017.
3. SWN Production Company, LLC, Pad ID: BOMAN PAD, ABR-201212011.R1, Jackson Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9990 mgd; Approval Date: December 5, 2017.
4. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 322 Pad C, ABR-201304006.1, Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.5000 mgd; Approval Date: December 7, 2017.
5. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 322 Pad E, ABR-201308002.1, Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.5000 mgd; Approval Date: December 7, 2017.
6. EXCO Resources (PA), LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 727 (Pad 3), ABR-201211011.R1, Gallagher Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 8.0000 mgd; Approval Date: December 15, 2017.
7. Seneca Resources Corporation, Pad ID: DCNR 100 Pad R, ABR-201304013.R1, Lewis Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: December 15, 2017.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the approved by rule projects rescinded by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
December 1-31, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, being rescinded for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and § 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Endless Mountain Energy Partners, LLC, Pad ID: SGL Tract 268-Pad B, ABR-201206010.R1, Morris Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Rescind Date: December 20, 2017.
2. Endless Mountain Energy Partners, LLC, Pad ID: Sturgis-B, ABR-201205019.R1, Gallagher Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Rescind Date: December 20, 2017.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection. The collection involves an internet based tool, the Safety Assurance System (SAS) External Portal. The SAS External Portal is used by the FAA's Office of Flight Standards to conduct initial certification, routine surveillance, and certificate management for applicants and certificate holders. The information to be collected will be used to better facilitate efficient certification, surveillance and certificate management activities.
Written comments should be submitted by April 24, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
There will be extensive use of the External Portal for submittal of electronic documents from certificate holders and applicants. The SAS External Portal is now accessible to all users via the internet, regardless of geographical location of the certificate holder or applicant, thus making it easier for applicants and certificate holders to collaborate with the FAA.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Seventy Second RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Seventy Second RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary Meeting.
The meeting will be held April 26, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Rebecca Morrison 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 Seventy Second RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary 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
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The DOT invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Written comments should be submitted by April 24, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0025] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Carlita Ballard, International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs (NRM-310), 202-366-5222, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W43-439, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) 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) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comment about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to reinstate an information collection. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Comments must be received on or before April 24, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by DOT docket no. NHTSA-2017-0105) through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Hisham Mohamed, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room #W43-437, NRM-310, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed's telephone number is 202-366-0307. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) 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) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the agencies) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. On October 6, 2017, the agencies, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), requested
The proposed FFIEC 016 would combine the agencies' three separate, yet identical, stress test report forms (as described in the
The Board, in connection with this proposal, has approved the transition of the FR Y-16 (Annual Company-Run Stress Test Report For State Member Banks, Bank Holding Companies, and Savings and Loan Holding Companies with Total Consolidated Assets Greater Than $10 Billion and Less Than $50 Billion), which it currently uses to collect the annual company-run stress test results, to the FFIEC 016, conditioned on the approval of the FFIEC 016 by the OMB. Also in connection with the final adoption of the FFIEC 016, the OCC and the FDIC are proposing to replace the OCC's DFAST 10-50B (Annual Company-Run Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act), and the FDIC's DFAST 10-50 (Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act), respectively, with the FFIEC 016.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2018.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
•
•
•
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed FFIEC 016 report discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency staff whose names appear below. In addition, a copy of the proposed FFIEC 016 reporting form is available on the FFIEC's website (
As noted, on October 6, 2017, the agencies requested public comment for 60 days on a proposal to implement the Annual Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Report for Depository Institutions and Holding Companies with $10-$50 Billion in Total Consolidated Assets (FFIEC 016).
The agencies proposed to implement the FFIEC 016 report form to replace the following report forms, which are approved collections of information: Board's FR Y-16, Annual Company-Run Stress Test Report For State Member Banks, Bank Holding Companies, and Savings and Loan Holding Companies with Total Consolidated Assets Greater Than $10 Billion and Less Than $50 Billion (OMB Control No. 7100-0356); FDIC's DFAST 10-50, Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (OMB Control No. 3064-0187); and OCC's DFAST 10-50B, Annual Company-Run Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (OMB Control No. 1557-0311). These existing report forms collect identical information; however, the respondent institutions for each form vary based on each agency's supervisory jurisdiction.
The proposed FFIEC 016 information collections would be mandatory for institutions with average total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion, but less than $50 billion. The FFIEC 016 implements the reporting of the annual company-run stress testing required of such institutions under section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203 (Dodd-Frank Act), and each agency's implementing regulation.
The FFIEC 016 report would be submitted by institutions supervised by the agencies with average total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion, but less than $50 billion, to report their company-run stress test results. These reports collect quantitative projections of balance sheet assets and liabilities, income, losses, and capital across three scenarios (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse) and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop these internal projections.
Data received in the agencies' $10-$50 billion annual Dodd-Frank Act company-run stress test reports are used in connection with supervision and regulation of these institutions to form supervisory assessments of the quality of a company's stress-testing process and, overall, as part of the broader assessment of a company's capital adequacy and risk management process. Data collected in these reports provide the agencies with one of many tools available to examiners to assist in the analysis and assessment of a company's capital position and planning process.
Each agency has issued rules applicable to the banking organizations it supervises with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion, but less than $50 billion, that implement the company-run stress testing requirement promulgated by section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The annual as-of date of the stress test report is December 31, and the submission deadline for the report is the following July 31.
Currently, the agencies maintain separate, yet identical, report forms (FR Y-16, FDIC DFAST 10-50, and OCC DFAST 10-50B) for the banks, savings associations, and holding companies they supervise to report these company-run stress test results. These annual reports collect quantitative projections of balance sheet assets and liabilities, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic and financial scenarios as well as qualitative supporting information on the methodologies and processes used to develop those internal projections. As noted, the agencies are proposing to combine these separate data collections and designate the combined report as a uniform FFIEC data collection. As part of their proposed adoption of the new FFIEC 016 report, the agencies also are proposing to change the quantitative and qualitative information currently collected in their separate, yet identical, report forms to implement a limited number of revisions that would align the new report with recent burden-reducing changes to the FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and the Board's FR Y-9C.
The following revisions to the FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FR Y-9C (as applicable) that took effect March 31, 2017, would affect the proposed FFIEC 016:
(1) On the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RI, Memorandum item 14.a, and on the FR Y-9C Schedule HI, Memorandum item 17(a), “Total other-than-temporary impairment losses,” was removed, but institutions continue to report other-than-temporary impairment losses recognized in earnings on the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RI, Memorandum item 14, and the FR Y-9C Schedule HI, Memorandum item 17. The agencies propose for the new FFIEC 016 report form and instructions to replace line item 25, “Total other-than-temporary impairment losses,” on each Income Statement scenario schedule with “Other-than-temporary impairment losses on held-to-maturity and available-for-sale debt securities recognized in earnings” as defined in FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RI, Memorandum item 14, and FR Y-9C Schedule HI, Memorandum item 17.
(2) On the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RC-E, Part I, Memorandum items 1.c.(1), “Brokered deposits of less than $100,000,” and 1.c.(2), “Brokered deposits of $100,000 through $250,000 and certain brokered retirement deposit accounts,” were combined into a single item, Memorandum item 1.c, “Brokered deposits of $250,000 or less (fully insured brokered deposits).” The agencies propose for the new FFIEC 016 report form and instructions to align its Balance Sheet line items 32 and 33 for retail and wholesale funding calculations, respectively, with the updated FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RC-E, Part I, Memorandum item 1.c, “Brokered deposits of $250,000 or less (fully insured brokered deposits).”
(3) On Schedule RC-M of the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041, items for the amount of loans covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements in the following loan categories were removed and combined with existing Schedule RC-M, item 13.a.(5), “All other loans and all leases” covered by such agreements: Item 13.a.(2), “Loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers”; item 13.a.(3), “Commercial and industrial loans”; item 13.a.(4)(a), “Credit cards”; item 13.a.(4)(b), “Automobile loans”; and item 13.a.(4)(c), “Other (includes revolving credit plans other than credit cards, and other consumer loans).” In order to keep the data collection uniform and comparable across types of reporting institutions, the agencies propose for the new FFIEC 016 report form and instructions to discontinue the deduction of loans covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements from each of the loan categories collected in Balance Sheet line items 1 through 13. In addition, in the proposed new FFIEC 016 report form, existing Balance Sheet line item 14, “Loans covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements,” will be retained.
In addition, the agencies are proposing to have reporting institutions provide their LEI on the FFIEC 016 report form, if they have one. The LEI is a 20-digit alpha-numeric code that uniquely identifies entities that engage in financial transactions. The recent financial crisis spurred the development of a Global LEI System (GLEIS). Internationally, regulators and market participants have recognized the importance of the LEI as a key improvement in financial data systems. The Group of Twenty (G-20) nations directed the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to lead the coordination of international regulatory work and deliver concrete recommendations on the GLEIS by mid-2012, which in turn were endorsed by the G-20 later that same year. In January 2013, the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC), including participation by regulators from around the world, was established to oversee the GLEIS on an interim basis. With the establishment of the full Global LEI Foundation in 2014, the ROC continues to review and develop broad policy standards for LEIs. The OCC, the Board, and the FDIC are all members of the ROC.
The LEI system is designed to facilitate several financial stability objectives, including the provision of higher quality and more accurate financial data. In the United States, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) has recommended that regulators and market participants continue to work together to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of financial data both nationally and globally. In this regard, the FSOC also has recommended that its member agencies promote the use of the LEI in reporting requirements and rulemakings, where appropriate.
With respect to the FFIEC 016, the agencies are proposing to have reporting institutions provide their LEI on the cover page of this new report once it is implemented, if a reporting institution has an LEI. A reporting institution that does not have an LEI would not be required to obtain one for purposes of reporting it on the FFIEC 016.
The uniform FFIEC 016 report would be collected in an electronic format using file specifications and formats determined by the agencies, as prescribed in the Federal Reserve System's Reporting Central application. The agencies believe that developing a uniform report under the FFIEC reporting structure will promote uniform standards and reporting across the agencies, which is consistent with the function of the FFIEC.
With OMB approval, the first annual filing deadline for the FFIEC 016 report form would be July 31, 2018, using information as of December 31, 2017.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comments are specifically invited on:
(a) Whether the collections of information that are the subject of this notice are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the information.
Comments submitted in response to the joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
This Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) notice updates the information on Tier 1 medications.
Joseph Duran, Office of Community Care (10D), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420,
Section 17.110 of Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, governs copayments for medications that VA provides to veterans. Section 17.110 provides the methodologies for establishing the copayment amount for each 30-day or less supply of medication provided by VA on an outpatient basis (other than medication administered during treatment). “Tier 1 medication means a multi-source medication that has been identified using the process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.”
Section 17.110 provides that a list of Tier 1 medications will either be published as a notice in the
Based on the methodologies set forth in § 17.110, this notice updates the list of Tier 1 medications. Not less than once per year, VA will identify a subset of multi-source medications as Tier 1 medications. Only medications that meet all of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) will be eligible to be considered Tier 1 medications, and only those medications that meet all of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section will be assessed using the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii). As of the date of this notice, the Tier 1 medication list at individual VA medical facilities based on the methodologies in § 17.110 will be posted on VA's website at
The following table is the Tier 1 Copay Medication List that is effective January 1, 2018, and will remain in effect until December 31, 2018.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 12, 2018, for publication.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice to withdraw.
On February 1, 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) erroneously published a consecutive 60-day
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at 202-461-5870.
VA wishes to inform the public that it is withdrawing FR Document Number 2018-01945, published Thursday, February 1, 2018. To correct the error, VA has submitted a 30-day
By direction of the Secretary.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |