| Page Range | 8923-9133 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 8972 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 8923 - President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition | |
| 83 FR 8938 - Safety Zone: Monte Foundation Snowfest Fireworks, Tahoe City, Lake Tahoe, CA | |
| 83 FR 9028 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 8962 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 8991 - Deletion of Items From Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8994 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Programs, Initiatives, and Priorities; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), March 21, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 8973 - Applications for New Awards; Lead of a Career and Technical Education Network: Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Education Policy and Practice Program | |
| 83 FR 8988 - Regular Meeting: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board | |
| 83 FR 8972 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
| 83 FR 8971 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 9026 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
| 83 FR 8969 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Pelagic Longline Fishery Management | |
| 83 FR 8972 - Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8968 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9072 - Fourteenth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary | |
| 83 FR 8987 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Contractor Conflicts of Interest; EPA ICR 1550.11, OMB Control No. 2030-0023 | |
| 83 FR 8940 - Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, Rocky Mountain National Park; Bicycling | |
| 83 FR 9028 - Earned Import Allowance Program: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Program for Certain Apparel From the Dominican Republic, Ninth Annual Review | |
| 83 FR 9008 - Availability of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report and Solicitation of Written Comments | |
| 83 FR 8963 - Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Nevada; Humboldt-Toiyabe Integrated Invasive Plant Treatment Project | |
| 83 FR 8985 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 8984 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 8986 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 8987 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 8988 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 8933 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sturgeon Bay, Sturgeon Bay, WI | |
| 83 FR 8957 - Special Local Regulation; Miami Grand Prix of the Seas, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL | |
| 83 FR 8993 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 9092 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee; Change | |
| 83 FR 9093 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 8974 - Applications for New Awards; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)-Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools | |
| 83 FR 8986 - The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Alabama; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
| 83 FR 8963 - February 27, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 9096 - Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs | |
| 83 FR 8965 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 158-Vicksburg/Jackson, Mississippi, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, International Converter, (Insulation Facer), Iuka, Mississippi | |
| 83 FR 8966 - Foreign-Trade Zone 78-Nashville, Tennessee; Application for Subzone; CEVA Freight LLC; Mount Juliet and Lebanon, Tennessee | |
| 83 FR 8966 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 138-Franklin County, Ohio; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; International Converter (Insulation Facer); Caldwell, Ohio | |
| 83 FR 8967 - Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 8983 - Proposed Agency Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 8983 - Application for Presidential Permit; GridAmerica Holdings Inc. | |
| 83 FR 9003 - Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments-Small Entity Compliance Guide; Availability | |
| 83 FR 9000 - Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed: List of Products for Each Product Category; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 8996 - Proper Labeling of Honey and Honey Products; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 8953 - The Declaration of Added Sugars on Honey, Maple Syrup, and Certain Cranberry Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 8997 - Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence on the Beneficial Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates Submitted as a Citizen Petition; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 9015 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Country of Origin of Aluminum Honeycomb Panels | |
| 83 FR 9013 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Ethernet Gateway Products | |
| 83 FR 8929 - Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Silicon Dioxide as a Carrier for Flavors | |
| 83 FR 9006 - E18 Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 9017 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determinations Concerning Country of Origin of the Hub and Mobile Platforms, and the AMC Home Tele-Health System | |
| 83 FR 9009 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0011 | |
| 83 FR 9012 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0068 | |
| 83 FR 9084 - Meeting of the Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 9029 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Stepan Company | |
| 83 FR 9011 - Information Collection Request[s] to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0005 | |
| 83 FR 8961 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 9010 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0012 | |
| 83 FR 8946 - Emergency Measures To Address Overfishing of Atlantic Shortfin Mako Shark | |
| 83 FR 9001 - United States Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada Joint Regional Consultation on the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 8955 - Special Local Regulation; Black Warrior River, Tuscaloosa, AL | |
| 83 FR 8936 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Petaluma River, Haystack Landing (Petaluma), CA | |
| 83 FR 8937 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD | |
| 83 FR 8937 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Passaic River, Harrison, NJ | |
| 83 FR 8930 - Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments | |
| 83 FR 8959 - Transporting Bows and Crossbows Across National Park System Units | |
| 83 FR 9072 - Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary With EUROCAE Working Group 79 | |
| 83 FR 8933 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sloop Channel, Hempstead, New York | |
| 83 FR 9071 - Federal Register Meeting Notice; Quarterly Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 8945 - Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Amendments | |
| 83 FR 9030 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive Patent License | |
| 83 FR 9031 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 9042 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Enhance the Calculation of the Volatility Component of the Clearing Fund Formula That Utilizes a Parametric Value-at-Risk Model and Eliminate the Market Maker Domination Charge | |
| 83 FR 9035 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection To Advance Notice Filing, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Enhance the Calculation of the Volatility Component of the Clearing Fund Formula That Utilizes a Parametric Value-at-Risk Model and Eliminate the Market Maker Domination Charge | |
| 83 FR 9055 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Advance Notice Filing of Proposed Changes to the Method of Calculating Netting Members' Margin in the Government Securities Division Rulebook | |
| 83 FR 9029 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Agreement and Undertaking | |
| 83 FR 9027 - Certain Fuel Pump Assemblies Having Vapor Separators and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 9093 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 9084 - Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board-Notice of Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 8951 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 9027 - Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, and Korea; Determinations | |
| 83 FR 8991 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 8989 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 8992 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 8989 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 9008 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9008 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9089 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 9085 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 9025 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration | |
| 83 FR 8993 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the NCH Healthcare System, PSO | |
| 83 FR 9022 - Agency Information Collection Activities; American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Government Customer Satisfaction Surveys | |
| 83 FR 9023 - Agency Information Collection Activities; E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Surveys (Formerly American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Surveys) | |
| 83 FR 9083 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2007 Jeep Wrangler Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation | |
| 83 FR 9074 - Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 9047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a New Data Feed on the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
| 83 FR 9046 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update Rule 4758 To Reflect the Name Change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American | |
| 83 FR 9050 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Private Securities Offerings Representative (Series 82) Examination | |
| 83 FR 9039 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Securities Trader (Series 57) Examination | |
| 83 FR 9032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.56, Compression Forums, To Provide Additional Opportunities To Disclose Compression-List Positions Monthly | |
| 83 FR 9021 - International Wildlife Conservation Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 9031 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments Request | |
| 83 FR 9032 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments Request | |
| 83 FR 9049 - Little Harbor Advisors, LLC and ETF Series Solutions | |
| 83 FR 9054 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 9053 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 8998 - Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 9004 - Standardization of Data and Documentation Practices for Product Tracing; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 9073 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Indiana | |
| 83 FR 8927 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters |
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; correction.
We are revising airworthiness directive (AD) 2018-01-12 for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopters to correct an error. As published, AD 2018-01-12 referenced an incorrect monostable toggle switch part number (P/N) in the preamble and regulatory text. This document corrects the error. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.
This AD becomes effective March 2, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 20, 2018 (83 FR 2039, January 16, 2018).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
AD 2018-01-12, Amendment 39-19153 (83 FR 2039, January 16, 2018) applied to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopters with a dual hydraulic system installed. AD 2018-01-12 required revising the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) to perform the yaw load compensator check (ACCU TST switch) after rotor shut-down instead of during preflight procedures and to state that the yaw servo hydraulic switch (collective switch) must be in the “ON” (forward) position before taking off. AD 2018-01-12 also required modifying the yaw servo hydraulic switch and replacing the bistable ACCU TST button with a monostable button.
We issued AD 2018-01-12 to prevent takeoff without hydraulic pressure in the tail rotor (T/R) hydraulic system, loss of T/R flight control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
As published, AD 2018-01-12 contained an incorrect P/N in the preamble and regulatory text. Specifically, the AD identified the Geneva Aviation P122 and P132 electrical console monostable toggle switch P/N as “MS24658-16F.” The correct P/N is “MS24658-26F.”
Accordingly, we have determined that it is appropriate to take action to revise AD 2018-01-12 to correct the Geneva Aviation P122 and P132 electrical console monostable toggle switch P/N. This correction will ensure that it will be possible for operators to comply with the AD by referencing the correct P/N for replacing the toggle switch.
No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been changed. The final rule is reprinted in its entirety for the convenience of affected operators.
Since this action corrects an obvious error in referencing the P/N for a replacement part, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin (SB) No. AS350-67.00.64, Revision 0, dated February 25, 2015. This service information specifies procedures to install a timer relay and an additional indicator light on the caution and warning panel. This modification provides an “OFF” status indication of the yaw servo hydraulic switch by flashing a newly installed “HYD2” indicator light on the caution and warning panel. Airbus Helicopters identifies performance of this SB as modification 074622.
We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.65, Revision 0, dated August 25, 2016. This service information specifies procedures to replace the bistable push button ACCU TST switch with a monostable push button switch. Airbus Helicopters identifies performance of this SB as modification 074719.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.66, Revision 1, dated October 22, 2015. This service information specifies inserting specific pages of the SB into the rotorcraft flight manual. These pages revise the preflight and post-flight hydraulic checks by moving the T/R yaw load compensator check from preflight to post-flight.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.
We estimate that this AD affects 86 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Revising an RFM takes about 0.5 work-hour for a cost of $43 per helicopter and $3,698 for the U.S. fleet. Installing a timer relay for the yaw servo hydraulic switch and an indicator light takes about 9 work-hours and parts cost about $2,224. Replacing the ACCU TST button takes about 1 work-hour and parts cost about $2,244.
Based on these figures, we estimate a total cost of $5,361 per helicopter and $461,046 for the U.S. fleet.
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.
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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 applies to Model AS350B3 helicopters with a dual hydraulic system installed, certificated in any category.
The dual hydraulic system for Model AS350B3 helicopters is referred to as Airbus modification OP 3082 or OP 3346.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as lack of hydraulic pressure in a tail rotor (T/R) hydraulic system. This condition could result in loss of T/R flight control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD replaces AD 2018-01-12, Amendment 39-19153 (83 FR 2039, January 16, 2018).
This AD becomes effective March 2, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, insert a copy of this AD into the rotorcraft flight manual, Section 4 Normal Operating Procedures, or make pen and ink changes to the preflight and post-flight procedures as follows:
(i) Stop performing the yaw load compensator check (ACCU TST switch) during preflight procedures, and instead perform the yaw load compensator check during post-flight procedures after rotor shut-down.
(ii) The yaw servo hydraulic switch (collective switch) must be in the “ON” (forward) position before takeoff.
The yaw servo hydraulic switch is also called the hydraulic pressure switch or hydraulic cut off switch in various Airbus Helicopters rotorcraft flight manuals.
(2) Within 350 hours time-in-service:
(i) Install a timer relay for the yaw servo hydraulic switch (collective switch) by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2.b.1, 3.B.2.b.2, 3.B.2.b.3, 3.B.2.b.4, 3.B.2.b.5, or 3.B.2.b.6, as applicable to the configuration of your helicopter, of Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin (SB) No. AS350-67.00.64, Revision 0, dated February 25, 2015 (AS350-67.00.64). If your helicopter has an automatic pilot system, also comply with paragraph 3.B.2.b.7 of AS350-67.00.64.
(ii) Install an indicator light on the caution and warning panel by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2.c.1 or 3.B.2.c.2, as applicable to the configuration of your helicopter, of AS350-67.00.64.
(iii) For helicopters with a Geneva Aviation P122 or P132 electrical console installed, replace the ESN-11 HYD TEST (ACCU TST) switch with a monostable toggle switch part number MS24658-26F.
(iv) For helicopters without a Geneva Aviation P122 or P132 electrical console installed, replace the bistable ACCU TST button on the control panel with a monostable button as depicted in Figure 1 or Figure 3, as applicable to the configuration of your helicopter, of Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.65, Revision 0, dated August 25, 2016.
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a bistable ACCU TST button on any helicopter.
A special flight permit may be issued for paragraph (f)(2) of this AD only.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.66, Revision 1, dated October 22, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0220, dated November 4, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2910, Main Hydraulic System.
(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 February 20, 2018 (83 FR 2039, January 16, 2018).
(i) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. AS350-67.00.64, Revision 0, dated February 25, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. AS350-67.00.65, Revision 0, dated August 25, 2016.
(4) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(6) 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:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or the Agency) is amending the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of silicon dioxide as a carrier for flavors for use in animal feed. This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by Idemitsu Kosan, Cp. Ltd.
This rule is effective March 2, 2018. See section V of this document for information on the filing of objections. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on the final rule by April 2, 2018.
You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be considered. Electronic objections must be submitted on or before April 2, 2018. The
Submit electronic objections in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection 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 objections submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your objection, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two
Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl. (HFV-224), Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729,
In a notice published in the
FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of silicon dioxide as a carrier for flavors for use in animal feed and that the food additive regulations should be amended as set forth in this document. This is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with § 571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for inspection at the Center for Veterinary Medicine by appointment with the information contact person (see
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment, nor an environmental impact statement is required.
If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see
Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at
Animal feeds, Food additives.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 573 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.
(d) It is used or intended for use in feed components, as a carrier as follows:
(e) To ensure safe use of the additive, silicon dioxide is to be used in an amount not to exceed that reasonably required to accomplish its intended effect, and silicon dioxide from all sources cannot exceed 2 percent by weight of the complete feed.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule implements the 2018 adjustment of the level of the maximum civil monetary penalties contained in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) regulations pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the Federal Civil
This rule is effective on March 2, 2018.
Deanna Meyer-Pietruszka, Chief, Office of Policy, Regulation and Analysis, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, at (202) 208-6352 or by email at
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount at least once every three years to reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index to account for inflation (43 U.S.C. 1350(b)(1)). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 104-410) (FCPIA of 1990) requires that all civil monetary penalties, including the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount, be adjusted at least once every four years.
Similarly, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to impose civil penalties for failure to comply with financial responsibility regulations that implement OPA. The FCPIA of 1990 requires that all civil monetary penalties, including the OPA maximum civil penalty amount, be adjusted for inflation at least once every four years.
The FCPIA of 2015 requires Federal agencies to promulgate annual inflation adjustments for civil monetary penalties. Specifically, agencies are required to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking (IFR) in 2016, and must make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation, beginning in 2017. Agencies were required to publish the first annual inflation adjustments in the
BOEM last adjusted the levels of civil monetary penalties in BOEM regulations through a final rule, RIN 1010-AD95 [82 FR 10709], which was published on February 15, 2017.
The OMB Memorandum M-18-03, issued December 15, 2017, (Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015;
BOEM is promulgating this 2018 inflation adjustment for civil penalties as a final rule pursuant to the provisions of the FCPIA of 2015 and OMB guidance. A proposed rule is not required because the FCPIA of 2015 states that agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act.” (FCPIA of 2015 at sec. 4(b)(2)). Accordingly, Congress expressly exempted the annual inflation adjustments implemented pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015 from the pre-promulgation notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), allowing them to be published as a final rule. This interpretation of the statute is confirmed by OMB Memorandum M-18-03. (OMB Memorandum M-18-03 at 4 (“This means that the public procedure the APA generally requires—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.”)).
Under the FCPIA of 2015 and the guidance provided in OMB Memorandum M-18-03, BOEM has identified applicable civil monetary penalties and calculated the necessary inflation adjustments. The previous civil penalty inflation adjustments accounted for inflation through October 2016. The required annual civil penalty inflation adjustment promulgated through this rule accounts for inflation through October 2017.
Annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U. Consistent with the guidance in OMB Memorandum M-18-03, BOEM divided the October 2017 CPI-U by the October 2016 CPI-U to calculate the multiplying factor. In this case, October 2017 CPI-U (246.663)/October 2016 CPI-U (241.729) = 1.02041. OMB Memorandum M-18-03 confirms that this is the proper multiplier. (
For 2018, OCSLA and the FCPIA of 2015 require that BOEM adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount. To accomplish this, BOEM multiplied the existing OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount ($42,704) by the multiplying factor ($42,704 × 1.02041 = $43,575.59). The FCPIA of 2015 requires that the resulting amount be rounded to the nearest $1.00 at the end of the calculation process. Accordingly, the adjusted OCSLA maximum civil penalty is $43,576.
For 2018, the FCPIA of 2015 requires that BOEM adjust the OPA maximum civil penalty amount. To accomplish this, BOEM multiplied the current OPA maximum civil penalty amount ($45,268) by the multiplying factor (45,268 × 1.02041 = $46,191.92). The FCPIA of 2015 requires that the resulting amount be rounded to the nearest $1.00 at the end of the calculation process. Accordingly, the adjusted OPA maximum civil penalty is $46,192.
The adjusted penalty levels will take effect immediately upon publication of this rule. Pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015, the increases in the OCSLA and OPA maximum civil penalty amounts apply to civil penalties assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even if the associated violation(s) predates such increase. Consistent with the provisions of OCSLA, OPA, and the FCPIA of 2015, this rule adjusts the following maximum civil monetary penalties per day per violation:
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. (
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to reduce uncertainty and to promote predictability and the use of the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements, to the extent relevant and feasible given the limited discretion provided agencies in FCPIA.
E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017 directs Federal agencies to reduce the regulatory burden on regulated entities and control regulatory costs. E.O. 13771, however, applies only to significant regulatory actions, as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. OIRA has determined that agency regulations exclusively implementing the annual adjustment are not significant regulatory actions under E.O. 12866, provided they are consistent with OMB Memorandum M-18-03 (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. (
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department of the Interior's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual Part 512, Chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175. We have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, and that consultation under the Department of the Interior's tribal and ANCSA consultation policies is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because, as a regulation of an administrative nature, this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Federal lands, Government contracts, Investigations, Mineral resources, Oil and gas exploration, Outer continental shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way, Sulfur.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Financial responsibility, Liability, Limit of liability, Oil and gas exploration, Oil pollution, Outer continental shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way, Surety bonds, Treasury securities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the BOEM amends 30 CFR parts 550 and 553 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334.
The maximum civil penalty is $43,576 per day per violation.
33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 12777, as amended.
(a) If you fail to comply with the financial responsibility requirements of OPA at 33 U.S.C. 2716 or with the requirements of this part, then you may be liable for a civil penalty of up to $46,192 per COF per day of violation (that is, each day a COF is operated without acceptable evidence of OSFR).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge across the Sloop Channel, mile 12.8, at Hempstead, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate the machinery rehabilitation and spanlock replacement of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on March 5, 2018 to 7 a.m. on May 9, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0120 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email
The owner of the bridge, the New York State Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate the machinery rehabilitation and spanlock replacement of the bridge. The Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge across the Sloop Channel, mile 12.8, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(h).
This temporary deviation allows the Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge to remain in the closed position daily on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. as follows: March 5-7, 2018; and March 12-14, 2018. Additionally, the Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge shall remain in the closed position between 7 a.m. Monday and 7 a.m. Wednesday as follows: April 30-May 2, 2018; and May 7-9, 2018. The majority of Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge openings for the past three years between March and April occurred on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
The waterway is transited by commercial and recreational traffic. The Coast Guard notified known waterway users and there were no objections to this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform waterway users of the closure through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating regulation that governs the Bayview (State Route 42/57) Bridge, Mile 3.0, Maple-Oregon Bridge, Mile 4.17, and Michigan Street Bridge, Mile 4.3, all over the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI, by authorizing remote operation for all three drawbridges. The operating
This rule is effective April 2, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, or
On February 21, 2017, we published an interim rule with request for comments entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sturgeon Bay, Sturgeon Bay, WI in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The operating schedules for the three drawbridges that cross Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI are found under the existing regulation, 33 CFR 117.1101; Sturgeon Bay. All three drawbridges are bascule-type bridges with unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. In the closed position, the three drawbridges provide the following clearances: Bayview Bridge 42-feet, Maple-Oregon Bridge 25-feet, and Michigan Street Bridge 14-feet. Under the current regulations, from March 15 thru November 30, the Bayview Bridge opens on signal for vessels 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Between December 1 and March 14 the Bayview Bridge will open for vessels if at least 12-hours advance notice is provided. Between March 15 and December 31, the Maple-Oregon Bridge will open for recreational vessels on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Between March 15 and December 31 the Michigan Street Bridge will open for vessels on the hour and half-hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Between January 1 and March 14 both the Maple-Oregon and the Michigan Street Bridges will open for vessels if at least 12-hours advance notice is provided. All three drawbridges open at any time for commercial vessels. Due to the close proximity of the Maple-Oregon and the Michigan Street Bridges, both are required to open simultaneously if requested by a commercial vessel and both shall open on signal at any time if at least 10 vessels have accumulated at either bridge waiting for an opening or vessels are seeking shelter from severe weather. This rule does not change any of the existing bridge schedules or conditions.
WI-DOT, owner of all three drawbridges, requested the Coast Guard authorize permanent remote operation of Bayview Bridge and Michigan Street Bridge, with operation from a single tender stationed at the middle bridge, Maple-Oregon Bridge, under the provisions of 33 CFR 117.42. The interim rule allowed testing of the remote operation arrangement throughout the 2017 navigation season to identify and fully evaluate any impacts during the testing period. Authorizing temporary remote operation of the Sturgeon Bay drawbridges provided an opportunity to evaluate the use of current technology to monitor and operate remote drawbridges due to the particular conditions on this waterway and the demonstrated historical record over time by the bridge owner, WI-DOT, to efficiently manage and operate their drawbridges within the Ninth Coast Guard District.
The Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal carries large (freighter) and smaller (tug/barge) commercial vessels, recreational vessels (including sailing vessels), vessels seeking emergency yard services, transient vessels, and vessels seeking shelter from severe weather. There are numerous commercial, recreational, and transient facilities along Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal, including a shipyard capable of servicing freighter size commercial vessels. Vessels may enter or exit the Ship Canal through east or west entrances, with some traffic passing through the entire waterway and requiring openings of all three drawbridges, and some traffic reaching facilities without requiring any drawbridge openings by entering the waterway from either the Lake Michigan or Green Bay sides.
Prior to the testing period authorized by the interim rule, WI-DOT provided data from the 2014 and 2015 seasons showing the number of commercial and recreational vessel traffic openings for each bridge. This data was published in the interim rule. For general comparison the total bridge openings of all three drawbridges during 2014 for all types of vessel traffic were 4,694 openings; during 2015 were 5,251 openings; and during 2017 (through November 30) were 4,945 openings.
WI-DOT gathered additional data throughout the 2017 navigation season and during the interim rule period, including vehicular and pedestrian traffic totals. The operating schedules for all three drawbridges were not changed during the 2017 testing period and will not be changed with this rule.
The interim rule provided a comment period between March 23 and December 1, 2017. We received three comments from the general public. Two comments generally supported the effectiveness of the remote operation arrangement. One comment stated the single tender located at the central bridge (Maple-Oregon Bridge) `should at the very least have visual contact with the bridge they are opening', citing the distance between the Maple-Oregon Bridge and the Bayview Bridge, approximately 1.3 miles apart. The Bayview Bridge offers greater vertical clearance for vessels in the closed position compared to Maple-Oregon Bridge, thereby requiring fewer drawbridge openings (488 openings at Bayview Bridge versus 1,439 openings at Maple-Oregon Bridge in 2017). The single tender at Maple-Oregon Bridge can visually see the Bayview Bridge with at least one mile of clear weather and has sufficient camera coverage for all approaches on the roadway or waterway (including thermal imaging during poor visibility) to safely operate the drawbridge for marine, vehicular and pedestrian traffic. No changes published in the interim rule have been revised in this final rule based on the comments received.
WI-DOT requested the Coast Guard authorize permanently operating the Bayview and Michigan Street Bridges with a single bridge tender operating
The overall number of openings at all three drawbridges between 2015 and 2017 were comparable (5,251 versus 4,945, respectively). The data provided by WI-DOT following the test period also included: No reports of equipment failure or temporary suspension of remote operation due to equipment failure; no periods of restricted visibility that affected safe remote operation; twenty occasions where ten or more vessels were waiting for openings between Michigan Avenue and Maple-Oregon Street Bridges, requiring openings outside of scheduled times and as per the existing operating regulations; and no additional periods where traffic volume or conditions necessitated manning all three drawbridges outside of expected traffic increases (Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day). The following items are among other lessons learned and provided by WI-DOT: High-definition cameras provide the greatest clarity of all views and should be mounted to the bridge in a manner where minimum vibration is experienced; two separate power sources are provided for each structure for redundancy; designation of one tender as “Head Drawtender” to receive and respond to all possible issues related to tenders, including emergency response; involve local law enforcement and fire first responders early in the planning process to ensure effective communications and interconnectivity with responder systems; identifying local sources to service equipment during emergencies to minimize disruptions; and investigate WiFi options for hard wire systems for redundancy.
In addition to the successful test during the interim rule period, the established performance history of this particular bridge owner/operator was a significant factor in our evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of remote bridge operation. Strong consideration was given to this bridge owner due to no reported unreasonable delays to open drawbridges in the past ten years, timely bridge repairs when any drawbridge is rendered inoperable, no reported safety incidents, protocols to have tenders on all bridges within 30 minutes, if needed, and remote tenders having no other duties other than monitoring and operation of the drawbridges.
We determined that the particular conditions on this waterway, along with the protocols and the historical performance of the bridge owner, allow for the safe and efficient operation of the Sturgon Bay drawbridges via remote operation.
The existing operating schedules of the drawbridges will not be changed by this rule. This rule modifies the regulatory language by including the authorization to remotely operate the drawbridges under the provisions of 33 CFR 117.42.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact no changes to operating schedules are implemented with this action. The remote drawbridge operation is expected and designed to be transparent to vessels with no additional requirements or actions necessary to pass any of the three drawbridges.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule imposes no changes or additional requirements for any vessel operator or small entity to pass a drawbridge compared to current conditions.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draws of the Bayview (State Route 42/57) and Michigan Street bridges, miles 3.0 and 4.3, respectively, at Sturgeon Bay, are remotely operated by the tender at Maple-Oregon bridge, mile 4.17, and shall open as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Northwestern Pacific (SMART) railroad bridge across the Petaluma River, mile 12.4, at Haystack Landing (Petaluma), CA. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is appropriate. This test deviation will modify the existing regulation to add an advance notification requirement for obtaining bridge openings.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on March 19, 2018 to 6 a.m. on June 17, 2018.
Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 2, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0091 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this test deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) owns the Northwestern Pacific railroad bridge across the Petaluma River, mile 12.4, at Haystack Landing (Petaluma), CA. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 3.6 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position, and currently operates under 33 CFR 117.187(a).
In 2015, SMART replaced the original swing bridge with a single leaf bascule bridge. Prior to 2015, the swing bridge was rarely used and was maintained in the fully open position. Commuter rail service began on August 25, 2017. Currently 32 trains cross the bridge each day. The Petaluma River supports commercial and recreational traffic. Due to an increase in said rail traffic, SMART has requested the drawspan remain in the closed-to-navigation position to avoid unnecessary bridge openings. The Coast Guard is publishing this temporary deviation to test the proposed schedule change SMART has
Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 6 a.m. on March 19, 2018 to 6 a.m. on June 17, 2018, the bridge shall open on signal from 3 a.m. to 11 p.m. if at least 2 hours notice is given to the drawtender. At all other times, the draw shall be maintained in the fully open position, except for the passage of trains or for maintenance. To request an opening, mariners can contact the drawtender via marine radio VHF-FM channel 16/9 or by telephone at (707) 890-8650. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be required to open as soon as practicable for vessels engaged in emergency response. SMART will log dates and times of vessels requesting openings. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting upstream of the bridge on the Petaluma River.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners and through direct outreach to local harbors, marinas, and water-based business of the temporary change in the operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. Your comments can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this document as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Route 280 Bridge across the Passaic River, mile 5.8, at Harrison, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary to perform work on the switch gear power source of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to undergo necessary maintenance for Route 21 interchange improvements. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed during the maintenance period.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on March 1, 2018, until 11:59 p.m. on March 7, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0111, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email
The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order to perform work on the switch gear power source of the bridge.
The Route 280 Bridge across the Passaic River, mile 5.8, at Harrison, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.739(h).
This temporary deviation will allow the Route 280 Bridge to remain in the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on March 1, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on March 7, 2018. The deviation will have negligible effect on navigation. The waterway is transited by recreational and commercial vessels. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objection to the proposed closure of the draw. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the CSX Swing Bridge which carries CSX railroad across the Curtis Creek, mile 1.4, at Baltimore, MD. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
The deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on Monday, March 5, 2018, through 2:30 p.m. on Friday, March 30, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0031] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email
The CSX Corporation, owner and operator of the CSX Swing Bridge that carries CSX railroad across the Curtis Creek, mile 1.4, at Baltimore, MD, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to facilitate installation of railroad ties across the swing span of the drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 13 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, March 5, 2018, through March 30, 2018.
Curtis Creek is used by a variety of vessels including U.S. government and public vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will open on signal, if at least one hour notification is given. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, if at least 15 minutes notification is given. The bridge may be contacted at (410) 354-5593 24 hours per day. There is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe near Commons Beach in support of the Monte Foundation Snowfest Festival Fireworks Display on March 2, 2018. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on March 2, 2018.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0117. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received notice of this event on January 30, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.
For similar reasons as those stated above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on March 2, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 350-feet radius of the fireworks firing site. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to take place from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on March 2, 2018, at Lake Forest Boat Ramp in Tahoe City, CA. From 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on March 2, 2018, the staged fireworks barge will remain at Lake Forest Boat Ramp until the start of its transit to the display
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 7:00 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on March 2, 2018. During the loading, staging, transit, and until 30 minutes prior to the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. At 7:00 p.m. on March 2, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 12-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable water around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 350 feet in approximate position 39°10′07″ N, 120°08′16″ W (NAD 83) for the Monte Foundation Snowfest Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 8:15 p.m. on March 2, 2018.
The effect of the temporary safety zone is to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, staging, transit, and firing site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted areas. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing sites to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of these safety zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Park Service amends the special regulations for Rocky Mountain National Park to allow bicycle use on a 2-mile segment of the East Shore Trail located within the park. A portion of this 2-mile segment will require trail construction to accommodate bicycles and is therefore considered a new trail. National Park Service regulations require promulgation of a special regulation to designate new trails for bicycle use off park roads and outside developed areas.
This rule is effective on April 2, 2018.
Larry Gamble, Chief of Planning and Project Stewardship, Rocky Mountain National Park, 1000 U.S. Highway 36, Estes Park, CO 80517. Phone (970) 586-1320. Email:
Rocky Mountain National Park (park) was established in 1915 and is located in north central Colorado. The approximately 265,761-acre park contains spectacular scenery that includes majestic mountains, lakes, rivers, forests, meadows, and abundant wildlife. The East Shore Trail is a hiking and equestrian trail that runs roughly north/south along the east shore of Shadow Mountain Lake near the town of Grand Lake, Colorado. The entire trail is 6.2 miles long and ends at the southern boundary of the park. The East Shore Trailhead is located south of the town of Grand Lake. The trailhead and the first 0.7 miles of the trail are located on land administered by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area. Bicycle use is currently allowed only on this 0.7-mile section of the trail. The remaining 5.5 miles of the East Shore Trail are located within the park. Hiking and fishing access to the lake is allowed along the trail. This rule applies to the northernmost 2-mile segment of the East Shore Trail within the park extending north from Shadow
In January 2014, the National Park Service (NPS) published the East Shore Trail Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA evaluates (i) the suitability of the trail for bicycle use; and (ii) life cycle maintenance costs, safety considerations, methods to prevent or minimize user conflict, and methods to protect natural and cultural resources and mitigate impacts associated with bicycle use on the trail. After a public review period, the Regional Director of the Intermountain Region signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in February 2015 that identified the preferred alternative (Alternative B) in the EA as the selected action.
The EA and FONSI, which contain a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, scoping, the alternatives considered, maps, and the environmental impacts associated with the project, may be viewed on the park's planning website at
This final rule implements the selected action in the FONSI and authorizes the Superintendent to designate bicycle use on a 2-mile segment of the East Shore Trail within the park. This segment of the trail extends north from Shadow Mountain Dam to the park boundary. To accommodate bicycle use, a 0.25-mile section of the existing trail will be rerouted to improve public safety, to avoid sensitive natural and cultural resources, and to provide for sustainability of the trail. NPS regulations at 36 CFR 4.30 require a rulemaking to implement the selected action because a portion of the rerouted trail will require construction and is located in an undeveloped area. Bicycle use will not be authorized by the Superintendent until the rerouted trail segments are completed. Rerouting is expected to be completed in 2018.
The rule adds a new paragraph (f) to 36 CFR 7.7—Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System for Rocky Mountain National Park. The rule requires the Superintendent to notify the public when designating any portion of the trail for bicycle use and to identify the designation on maps available in the office of the Superintendent and other places convenient to the public. The rule authorizes the Superintendent to establish closures, conditions, or restrictions for bicycle use on designated routes after considering public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives. Notice of any such closures, conditions, or restrictions must be provided to the public.
The NPS published the proposed rule in the
The Rocky Mountain National Park Final Master Plan was adopted in January 1976 and remains the general land and resource management plan for the park. The framework for visitor use in the Master Plan establishes different zones within the park that, by virtue of their ease of access or facilities, fall into definable patterns of use. Management priorities defer to the basic character of a given zone to provide the visitor use experience for which the zone is most suited. The Master Plan allows for high-density use where necessary, and allows for the maintenance of natural conditions in more primitive portions of the park.
The more primitive portions of the park are those within designated wilderness, which comprises 95 percent of the park. The park's wilderness legislation excluded the East Shore Trail area from designated wilderness. Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law 111-11. The East Shore Trail is located within the 5 percent of the park that—according to the Master Plan—could accommodate high-density use where appropriate. Although the trail is located outside designated wilderness, the EA and FONSI do not propose significant modifications to the East Shore Trail to accommodate high-density use, but instead propose modest improvements to accommodate low-density use, including bicycle use, on a single track trail. For these reasons, the NPS believes the decision to allow bicycle use on the segment of the East Shore Trail identified in the EA is consistent with the park's Master Plan.
The NPS also believes that bicycle use is consistent with Congressional intent for management of the East Shore Trail area. The NTSA—which governs the administration of the national trails system—lists “trail biking” as a potential use of national scenic trails. 16 U.SC. 1246(j). The NTSA states that “other uses” of the trail system—in addition to campsites, shelters, and related public use facilities—should be permitted if they do not substantially interfere with the purposes of the trail. The NTSA also states that reasonable efforts should be made to provide sufficient access opportunities to the CDNST and, to the extent practicable, avoid activities incompatible for the purposes for which such trails were established. 16 U.SC. 1246(c).
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to establish a route for the East
The NPS also believes that allowing bicycles on the 0.9-mile segment of the East Shore Trail that is also part of the CDNST is compatible with and will not substantially interfere with the conservation of natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor. The FONSI determined that the construction of the trail and bicycle use on the trail would not have a significant effect on the human environment. The EA and FONSI evaluated potential impacts to natural resources such as soils and wildlife, and cultural resources such as archeological sites and historic structures. The FONSI identified mitigation strategies that will be implemented to protect natural and cultural resources (pages 3-4). The FONSI identifies an adaptive management strategy to address resource damage from bicycles (page 5). Indicators such as loss of trail tread and expansion of off-trail resource damage will be met with trail armoring, increased trail maintenance, reevaluation of trail design, and—as the most restrictive measure—elimination of bicycle use on the trail.
The NTSA states that the Comprehensive Plan for the CDNST will identify a carrying capacity for the trail and a plan for its implementation. 16 U.S.C. 1244(f). The Comprehensive Plan states that the policy of the Council is to establish a carrying capacity for the CDNST that accommodates its nature and purposes. The Comprehensive Plan states that NPS managers will utilize existing capacity estimates developed for general park or resource management plans. The Council has not yet established a carrying capacity for the CDNST and the NPS has not established a carrying capacity for the East Shore Trail in the park's Master Plan. Although there is no carrying capacity to guide management of the trail, the NPS believes it has complied with the management direction in the Comprehensive Plan that the carrying capacity determination will consider biophysical environmental needs and the social capacity factors needed to provide desired recreation experience opportunities. The EA and the FONSI evaluated the impacts of bicycle use on the natural environment and on the visitor experience on the trail. The adaptive management indicators, thresholds, and management actions that are a part of the decision to allow bicycles on a 2-mile section of the East Shore Trail are designed to avoid resource damage and conflicts among bicyclists and other park visitors.
The park's Master Plan was adopted in January 1976 and serves as the GMP for the park. At this time, the Secretary of the Interior has not listed the park as needing a revised Master Plan. In May 2013, the NPS published a Foundation Document for the park which includes information on park purpose, significance, interpretive themes, and fundamental resources and values. One of the identified planning needs in the Foundation Document is a visitor use management plan that would address capacities of several areas of the park and determine where use should be limited, where it could be expanded, and strategies for managing use. The areas contemplated for a visitor use management plan could include high use areas like the Bear Lake Road corridor and the Alpine Visitor Center, which host hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. The plan will be developed over the course of the next few years and will be done through an open public process. It is unlikely that the proposed visitor use management plan would include areas of the park with relatively low visitation such as the East Shore Trail.
The FONSI also commits the NPS to monitor the condition of the trail in accordance with an adaptive management strategy. Indicators such as loss of trail tread and expansion of off-trail resource damage will be met with management actions such as trail armoring and new trail design and edging. The HTA will provide funding to modify the trail to accommodate bike use in accordance with NPS trail standards. The HTA will also provide funding for trail maintenance that exceeds what the NPS would normally do for hiking and equestrian trails.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because it is an enabling regulation.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. Nevertheless, the NPS mailed a letter on April 18, 2013 inviting input specifically from affiliated Native American tribes and offering to arrange a site visit. No response was received.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NPS prepared the EA to determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act is not required because of the FONSI. A copy of the EA and FONSI can be found online at
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.
The primary authors of this regulation are Larry Gamble of Rocky Mountain National Park and Jay Calhoun, Regulations Program Specialist, National Park Service.
National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as set forth below:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under DC Code 10-137 and DC Code 50-2201.07.
(f)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is providing public notice of inflationary adjustments to the maximum civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by VA, as implemented by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, for calendar year 2018. VA may impose civil monetary penalties for false loan guaranty certifications. Also, VA may impose civil monetary penalties for fraudulent claims or written statements made in connection with VA programs generally. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, sets forth a formula that increases the maximum statutory amounts for civil monetary penalties and directs VA to give public notice of the new maximum amounts by regulation. Accordingly, VA is providing notice of the calendar year 2018 inflationary adjustments that increase maximum civil monetary penalties from $21,916 to $22,363 for false loan guaranty certifications and from $10,957 to $11,181 for fraudulent claims or written statements made in connection with VA programs generally.
Michael Shores, Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-4921. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act) (Pub. L. 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 599), which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act was codified in a note following 28 U.S.C. 2461. The 2015 Act requires agencies to publish annual adjustments for inflation, based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. 28 U.S.C. 2461 note 4(b) and 5(b)(1).
Under 38 U.S.C. 3710(g)(4), VA is authorized to levy civil monetary penalties against private lenders that originate VA-guaranteed loans if a lender falsely certifies that they have complied with certain credit information and loan processing standards, as set forth by chapter 37, title 38 U.S.C. and part 36, title 38 CFR. Under section 3710(g)(4)(B), any lender who knowingly and willfully makes such a false certification shall be liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty equal to two times the amount of the Secretary's loss on the loan involved or to another appropriate amount, not to exceed $10,000, whichever is greater. VA implemented the penalty amount in 38 CFR 36.4340(k)(1)(i) and (k)(3). On June 22, 2016, VA provided public notice of the adjustment to the $10,000 figure, as imposed by the 2015 Act's “catch up” formula. See 81 FR 40523-40525; 81 FR 65551-65552, Sept. 23, 2016. The “catch up” formula imposed an adjustment from $10,000 to $21,563. See 38 CFR 36.4340(k)(1)(i) and (k)(3). VA did not publish the calendar year 2017 inflation adjustment. On December 16, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published Circular M-17-11. This circular stated that the inflation adjustment to the previously increased “catch up” figure was effectuated by multiplying the “catch up” figure by 1.01636. Consequently, the calendar year 2017 inflation revision imposed an adjustment from $21,563 to $21,916, rounded to the nearest dollar. On December 15, 2017, OMB issued Circular M-18-03. This circular reflects that the October 2016 CPI-U was 241.729 and the October 2017 CPI-U was 246.663, resulting in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.02041. Accordingly, the calendar year 2018 inflation revision imposes an adjustment from $21,916 to $22,363.
Under 31 U.S.C. 3802, VA can impose monetary penalties against any person who makes, presents, or submits a claim or written statement to VA that the person knows or has reason to know is false, fictitious, or fraudulent, or who engages in other covered conduct. The statute permits, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each claim. 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(1) and (2). VA implemented the penalty amount in 38 CFR 42.3(a)(1) and (b)(1). That amount was subsequently increased to $5,500. See 61 FR 56449-56450, Nov.1, 1996. On June 22, 2016, VA provided public notice of the adjustment to the $5,500 figure, as imposed by the 2015 Act's “catch up” formula. See 81 FR 40523-40525; 81 FR 65551-65552, Sept. 23, 2016. The “catch up” formula imposed an adjustment from $5,500 to $10,781. See 38 CFR 42.3(a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1). VA did not publish the calendar year 2017 inflation adjustment. Circular M-17-11 stated that the inflation adjustment to the previously increased “catch up” figure was effectuated by multiplying the “catch up” figure by 1.01636. Consequently, the calendar year 2017 inflation revision imposed an adjustment from $10,781 to $10,957. Circular M-18-03 reflects an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.02041. Therefore, the calendar year 2018 inflation revision imposes an adjustment from $10,957 to $11,181.
Accordingly, VA is revising 38 CFR 36.4340(k)(1)(i) and (k)(3) and 38 CFR 42.3(a)(1) and (b)(1) to reflect the 2018 inflationary adjustments for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by VA.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) to dispense with the opportunity for prior notice and public comment and to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. The 2015 Act requires agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation to the allowed amounts of civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code.” 28 U.S.C. 2461 note 4(a) and (b). The penalty adjustments, and the methodology used to determine the adjustments, are set by the terms of the 2015 Act. VA has no discretion to make changes in those areas. Therefore, an opportunity for prior notice and public comment and a delayed effective date is unnecessary.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule 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 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on state, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.114, Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans.
Condominiums, Housing, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—Veterans, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
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 23, 2018, for publication.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR parts 36 and 42 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501 and 3720.
Pub. L. 99-509, secs. 6101-6104, 100 Stat. 1874, codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Interim final rule, emergency action; request for comments.
NMFS is taking emergency action through this interim final rule, in response to a new stock assessment for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks to implement measures required by International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Effective March 2, 2018 through August 29, 2018. Comments must be received on May 7, 2018. A public hearing will be held at the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel meeting on March 7, 2018, from 11 a.m.-12:15 p.m., EST. For specific location and webinar information, please see the
Copies of the Environmental Assessment and other supporting documents for this emergency action are available from the HMS Management Division website at
Written comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0010, may be submitted to the HMS Management Division by either of the following methods:
•
•
Tobey Curtis at 978-281-9273 or Guy DuBeck or Lauren Latchford at 301-427-8503.
The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark (
In August 2017, ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) conducted a new benchmark stock assessment on the North Atlantic shortfin mako stock. At its November 2017 annual meeting, ICCAT accepted this stock assessment and determined the stock to be overfished, with overfishing occurring. On December 13, 2017, based on this assessment, NMFS issued a status determination finding the stock to be overfished and experiencing overfishing using domestic criteria. The assessment specifically indicated that biomass (B
The 2017 assessment estimated that total North Atlantic shortfin mako catches across all ICCAT parties are currently between 3,600 and 4,750 mt per year, and that total catches would have to be at 1,000 mt or below (72-79 percent reductions) to prevent further population declines and that catches of 500 t or less currently are expected to stop overfishing and begin to rebuild the stock. The projections indicate that a total allowable catch of 0 mt would produce a greater than 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by the year 2040, which is approximately equal to one mean generation time. Research indicates that post-release survival rates of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks are high (70 percent); however, the assessment could not determine if requiring live releases alone would reduce landings sufficiently to end overfishing and rebuild the stock.
Based on this information, ICCAT adopted new management measures for Atlantic shortfin mako (Recommendation 17-08), which the United States must implement as necessary and appropriate under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. These measures largely focus on maximizing live releases of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, allowing retention only in certain limited circumstances, increasing minimum size limits, and improving data collection in ICCAT fisheries. In November 2018, ICCAT will review the catches from the first six months of 2018 and decide whether these measures should be modified. In 2019, the SCRS will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in ending overfishing and beginning to rebuild the stock. SCRS will also provide rebuilding information that reflects rebuilding timeframes of at least two mean generation times. Also in 2019, ICCAT will establish a rebuilding plan that will have a high probability of avoiding overfishing and rebuilding the stock to B
NMFS is implementing emergency measures in HMS recreational and commercial fisheries consistent with Recommendation 17-08 to address overfishing and to provide meaningful information reflective of the new measures for the six-month reporting requirement in the Recommendation. Management measures in the emergency rule are as follows:
• Commercial fishermen on vessels deploying pelagic longline gear, which are required to have a functional electronic monitoring system on board under current regulations, must release all live shortfin mako sharks with a minimum of harm, while giving due consideration to the safety of crew members. Commercial fishermen using pelagic longline gear can only retain a shortfin mako shark if it is dead at haulback.
• Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic longline commercial gear (
• Recreational fishermen (fishermen with HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat permits, and fishermen with Atlantic Tunas General category and Swordfish General Commercial permits when participating in a registered HMS tournament) must release any shortfin mako sharks smaller than the minimum size of 83 inches (210 cm) fork length (FL). This minimum size is an increase from the current minimum size of 54 inches FL. This measure is more conservative than what was specifically recommended in Recommendation 17-08, which suggested separate minimum size limits for males (180 cm FL) and females (210 cm FL). NMFS is implementing a single minimum size limit of 83 inches (210 cm) FL due to recent analyses conducted by NMFS (but were not available during the ICCAT meeting) that indicate the lower minimum size limit for males would not sufficiently reduce total shortfin mako shark landings to levels that the stock assessment estimates are required to end overfishing (refer to the EA; see
NMFS is soliciting public comment on this interim final rule and will take into consideration any comments received and any testimony at the public hearing, as it evaluates whether any modifications to the emergency measures are needed. These emergency measures will be effective until August 29, 2018, with a possible extension of up to an additional 186 days. These measures will be replaced by long-term measures, which will be considered through notice and comment rulemaking for an upcoming fishery management plan amendment, accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for that fishery management plan amendment will publish in the same issue of the
These emergency measures are expected to reduce shortfin mako landings in the HMS commercial fisheries and the ex-vessel revenues from those landings by approximately 75 percent. Thus, the commercial fisheries could cumulatively experience revenue losses of approximately $281,000 per year, 97 percent of which would be lost by the pelagic longline fishery. Lost revenues would have greater social and economic impacts on fishing communities with higher shortfin mako shark landings, including Wanchese, NC, Fairhaven/New Bedford, MA, and Barnegat Light, NJ. Shortfin mako sharks are a minor source of economic revenue to the overall HMS commercial fishery, but may be an important source of seasonal revenue to some individual fishermen. The socioeconomic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be significant overall, however, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than 1 percent of total ex-vessel revenues in the pelagic longline fishery on average, and an even smaller fraction of total fisheries revenues in the potentially-affected fishing communities. Therefore, socioeconomic impacts on the commercial fishery are expected to be slightly negative.
These emergency measures would also reduce recreational landings of shortfin mako sharks by approximately 83 percent. However, as catch-and-release practices would still be permitted, a significant reduction in recreational fishing or charter/headboat activity is not expected. However, the reduced opportunities to catch and land a shortfin mako shark of legal size may slightly reduce demand and revenues for charters and tournaments that target this species. Approximately five percent of charter vessels and seven percent of headboat vessels in the U.S. Atlantic target pelagic sharks, including shortfin mako, with the majority of these businesses located off the northeast United States. According to NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center tournament data, the larger minimum size limit may not significantly limit the ability of tournaments to land shortfin mako sharks, because most of the largest shortfin mako sharks landed at tournaments in recent years have been above the 83 inches FL minimum size limit. However, it is likely that fewer vessels will be able to catch a shortfin mako shark of legal size, within or outside of tournaments. Therefore, the socioeconomic impacts associated with recreational shark fishing effort (fuel, bait, fishing supply expenditures, tournament participation, etc.) are expected to be slightly negative.
Comments on this interim final rule may be submitted via
This emergency interim final rule is promulgated pursuant to section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and NMFS has determined that it is consistent with that Act and other applicable laws. NMFS policy guidelines for the use of emergency rules (August 21, 1997; 62 FR 44421) specify the following three criteria that define what an emergency situation is: (1) The emergency results from recent, unforeseen events or recently discovered circumstances; (2) the emergency presents serious conservation or management problems in the fishery; and (3) if the emergency action is being implemented without prior public comment, the emergency can be addressed through emergency regulations for which the immediate benefits outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and deliberative consideration of the impacts on participants to the same extent as would be expected under the normal rulemaking process.
This action meets the NMFS guidelines and criteria for emergency
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to waive the otherwise applicable requirements for both notice-and-comment rulemaking and a 30-day delay in effectiveness for this interim final, emergency rule implementing North Atlantic shortfin mako shark management measures. The recent unforeseen circumstances described above, and need for expedient action, make it impracticable to provide prior notice-and-comment opportunity and a 30-day delay. The new stock assessment for Atlantic shortfin mako sharks was completed in August 2017 and accepted in November by ICCAT and December 2017 by NMFS, revealing that the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock is overfished, with overfishing occurring. ICCAT developed Recommendation 17-08 at its annual meeting in November 2017, which the United States must implement as necessary and appropriate under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. It would be potentially harmful to the long-term sustainability of the resource to implement these measures through notice-and-comment rulemaking because immediate reductions in fishing mortality are needed to address overfishing and begin to rebuild the stock and data will be re-evaluated as soon as November 2018 to determine whether additional measures are needed. Unless the new measures are in place, they cannot be properly evaluated for effectiveness in the fall and ICCAT will not be able to determine whether additional measures are immediately needed. Additionally, affected fishing vessel owners should not require time to adjust to these regulations, as the regulations do not constitute substantive operational changes, such as changes to equipment that might require time for purchasing and installation, or changes to practices that might require special training. Here, the rule only affects the landing of a particular species, and thus vessel owners should be able to understand and implement the changes immediately. Furthermore, the agency requested voluntary implementation of these measures earlier this year, so fishermen have already been notified of these management changes.
For the reasons outlined, NMFS finds it impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior opportunity to comment on the Atlantic shortfin mako shark emergency measures. As noted above, NMFS is soliciting public comment on this interim final rule and will take into consideration any comments received and any testimony at the public hearing, as it evaluates whether any modifications to the emergency measures are needed. In addition, there will be multiple opportunities for public participation and notice-and-comment rulemaking as NMFS develops a long-term fishery management amendment to rebuild North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks.
This action is being taken pursuant to the emergency provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is exempt from OMB review.
This rule is exempt from the otherwise applicable requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior public comment.
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 amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(e) * * *
(6) All sharks, except as otherwise specified in this subsection below, landed under the recreational retention limits specified at § 635.22(c)(2) must be at least 54 inches (137 cm) FL.
(7) All North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks landed under the recreational retention limits specified at § 635.22(c)(2) must be at least 83 inches (210 cm) fork length.
(a) * * *
(4) Any person issued a commercial shark permit must release all shortfin mako sharks, alive or dead, caught on any gear other than pelagic longline gear.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel are required to release unharmed, to the extent practicable, any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time of haulback. Any shortfin mako shark that is dead at the time of haulback may be retained provided the electronic monitoring system is installed and functioning in accordance with § 635.9.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed shark LAP may retain, possess, or land pelagic sharks if the pelagic shark fishery is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using pelagic longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of haulback per § 635.21(c)(1).
(vi) Consistent with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental shark LAP may retain, possess, land, or sell no more than 16 SCS and pelagic sharks, combined, per vessel per trip, if the respective fishery is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Of those 16 SCS and pelagic sharks per vessel per trip, no more than 8 shall be blacknose sharks. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using pelagic longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of haulback per § 635.21(c)(1).
(d) * * *
(27) Land a shortfin mako shark that was caught with gear other than pelagic longline as specified at § 635.21(a).
(28) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with pelagic longline gear and was alive at haulback as specified at § 635.21(c)(1).
(29) As specified at § 635.21(c)(1), retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with pelagic longline gear when the electronic monitoring system was not installed and functioning in accordance with the requirements at § 635.9.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the longitudinal lap splices of the fuselage skin are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the longitudinal lap splices of the fuselage skin for cracking and protruding fasteners, and applicable corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 16, 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
David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; 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
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
The longitudinal lap splices of the fuselage skin on Model 757 airplanes have been determined to be susceptible to WFD. No cracking was found on the fatigue test article, but WFD analysis has identified the need for more frequent repetitive inspections. Existing maintenance planning data (MPD) inspections are not sufficient to detect widespread fatigue cracks before they become critical. Currently, there have been no reports of WFD cracking on airplanes in service. Any fatigue cracking of the longitudinal lap splices of the fuselage skin could go undetected and grow in length. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0104, dated November 6, 2017. The service information describes procedures for visual and eddy current inspections of the longitudinal lap splices of the fuselage skin for cracking and protruding head fasteners.
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 757-53A0104, dated November 6, 2017, described previously, 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
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 509 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed 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 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 16, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0104, dated November 6, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the longitudinal lap splices of the fuselage skin are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of the longitudinal lap splices of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0104, dated November 6, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0104, dated November 6, 2017.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0104, dated November 6, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0104, dated November 6, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(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 (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, 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 (h)(2) of this AD: 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 David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; 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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “The Declaration of Added Sugars on Honey, Maple Syrup, and Certain Cranberry Products: Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance, when finalized, will advise food manufacturers of our intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to the use in the Nutrition Facts label of a symbol “†” immediately after the added sugars percent Daily Value information on certain foods. The symbol would lead the reader to truthful and non-misleading statements outside the Nutrition Facts label to provide additional information regarding the added sugars present in particular foods.
Submit either electronic or written comments by May 1, 2018 to ensure that we consider your comment before we take further action.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Nutrition Programs Staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Claudine Kavanaugh, Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-1450.
We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “The Declaration of Added Sugars on Honey, Maple Syrup and Certain Cranberry Products: Guidance for Industry.” We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
The draft guidance is intended to advise food manufacturers of our intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to the use in the Nutrition Facts label of a symbol “†” immediately after the added sugars percent Daily Value information on certain foods. The symbol would lead the reader to truthful and non-misleading statements outside the Nutrition Facts label to provide additional information regarding the added sugars present in particular foods. The draft guidance would explain that we intend to consider exercising our enforcement discretion for the use of this symbol on single ingredient packages and/or containers of pure honey or pure maple syrup, and certain dried cranberry and cranberry juice products that are sweetened with added sugars, and that contain total sugars at levels no greater than comparable products with endogenous (inherent) sugars, but no added sugars.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
We invite interested persons to comment on topics related to the draft guidance. However, we are particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
1. The draft guidance is intended to advise food manufacturers of our intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to the use in the Nutrition Facts label of a symbol “†” immediately after the added sugars percent Daily Value information on certain foods. Should we use a different symbol? If so, what symbol should we use and what is the rationale for using an alternative? Also, should the placement or location of the symbol be elsewhere on the Nutrition Facts label? For example, should the symbol appear after “Includes X g Added Sugars” instead? Please explain where the symbol should appear and your reasons for placing the symbol elsewhere on the label.
2. We are considering giving an additional year to come into compliance with the changes required by the final rule for the labeling of packages or containers of pure honey and maple syrup, and for the dried cranberry and cranberry juice products described in this draft guidance. Consumers will likely become more acclimated and educated on having an added sugars declaration on the Nutrition Facts label during this time period, based in part on other products in the marketplace bearing the new Nutrition Facts label. Should FDA consider this period of enforcement discretion given that, in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation on the Black Warrior River extending the entire width of the river from mile marker 338.5 to mile marker 339.5 in Tuscaloosa, AL. The proposed rulemaking is needed to protect the persons participating in the USA Triathlon Collegiate National Championships marine event. This proposed rulemaking restricts transit into, through and within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 2, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0014 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-441-5940, email
On November 31, 2017, the marine event sponsor for the annual USA Triathlon Collegiate National Championships marine event submitted an application for a marine event permit. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined a special local regulation is needed to protect the persons participating in and viewing the USA Triathlon Collegiate National Championships marine event.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to restrict transit into, through and within the regulated area on the Black Warrior River extending the entire width of the river from mile marker 338.5 to mile marker 339.5 in Tuscaloosa, AL during the USA Triathlon Collegiate National Championships. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation on the Black Warrior River extending the entire width of the river from mile marker 338.5 to mile marker 339.5 in Tuscaloosa, AL. The proposed rulemaking is needed to needed to protect the persons participating in the USA Triathlon Collegiate National Championships marine event. This proposed rulemaking restricts transit into, through and within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the COTP. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM would be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer would be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative would terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the proposed rulemaking. The proposed special local regulation on the Black Warrior River would extend the entire width of the river from mile marker 338.5 to mile marker 339.5 in Tuscaloosa, AL from 4 a.m. on April 27, 2018 through 6 p.m. on April 28, 2018. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction. The rule also allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation on the Black Warrior River extending the entire width of the river from mile marker 338.5 to mile marker 339.5. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination would be available in the docket where indicated under
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile to patrol the regulated area.
(3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels.
(4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
(5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
(6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation (SLR) for certain navigable waters of Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL for the Miami Grand Prix of the Sea. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the public, spectators, vessels, and marine environment from potential hazards during high-speed, offshore-style boat and Personal Water Craft (PWC) races during the Miami Grand Prix of the Sea. This SLR is necessary to provide for the safety of the public, spectators, vessels, and marine environment during the Miami Grand Prix of the Sea. The SLR would establish two regulated areas, a safety zone and no anchoring zone. Non-participant persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami (COTP) or a designated representative. All vessels would be prohibited from anchoring in the no anchoring zone. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 2, 2018.
You may submit comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email
Powerboat P1-USA, LLC has notified the Coast Guard it will be hosting the Miami Grand Prix of the Sea from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. from April 20, 2018 through 22, 2018. The event will consist of 28-foot offshore-style powerboats and 200 to 300 Horsepower PWC racing inside the Miami Marine Stadium basin. Approximately 90 participants are scheduled to race in this event.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to establish a SLR to ensure the safety of
The COTP Miami proposes to establish a SLR from April 20 through 22, 2018 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The SLR would establish two regulated areas, a safety zone and no anchoring zone, that includes certain waters of Biscayne Bay and the Miami Marine Stadium basin. The duration of the zones is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the regulated area, which may affect a small, designated area of Biscayne Bay. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 notifying boaters of the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a regulation that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting or anchoring in the regulated areas during the event. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraphs L61 and of the DHS Instruction Manual Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety; Navigation (water); Waterways; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(2) The term “Patrol Commander” means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the respective Coast Guard Sector Commander to enforce these regulations.
(3) The term “spectators” means all persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP Miami by telephone at (305) 535-4472 or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Miami or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area through Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16 or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The National Park Service proposes to allow individuals to carry or possess a bow or crossbow within the National Park System when accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible.
Comments on the proposed rule and the notice of determination must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on May 1, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE44, by either of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jay Calhoun, NPS Regulations Program,
National Park Service (NPS) regulations at 36 CFR 2.4(b)(3) allow bows and crossbows that are not ready for immediate use to be possessed by individuals in NPS-administered areas within a mechanical mode of conveyance. This provides regulatory relief for transient individuals passing through park areas in vehicles and other forms of mechanical transport. This proposed rule would extend this relief to individuals transporting bows and crossbows on foot or horseback when accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible. Possessing bows and crossbows in this manner would be subject to applicable state laws and would not be allowed if the individual is otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a bow or crossbow.
This rule would recognize and address the difficulties faced by some individuals attempting to access private property or other lands and waters adjacent to NPS-administered areas. In some cases, the use of mechanical transport to access these adjacent lands and waters is impracticable. As a result, individuals must traverse NPS areas on foot or horseback to reach these lands and waters but under existing regulations cannot do so with bows and crossbows without first obtaining a permit from the park Superintendent. This rule would remove the permit requirement in order to carry or possess bows or crossbows for this purpose. This rule would not change the regulations in 36 CFR part 2 governing the use of a bow or crossbow in park areas.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because, once finalized, it would impose less than zero costs by removing a regulatory permit requirement that imposes unnecessary costs upon individuals seeking to safely access remote lands and waters. The costs associated with the requirement to obtain a permit before transporting a bow or crossbow across NPS lands or waters outside of a mechanical conveyance would be eliminated.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Transporting Bows and Crossbows Across National Park System Units” that is available to the public upon request.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This proposed rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and has determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the NPS intends to categorically exclude this rule under 516 DM 12.5(A)(10). This rule will modify existing NPS regulations in a manner that does not increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the National Park System or causing physical damage to it. The rule will not conflict with adjacent ownerships or lands uses, or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.
The NPS is required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule the NPS publishes must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that the NPS has not met these requirements, send the NPS comments by one of the methods listed in the
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
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 the NPS in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the NPS cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 2 as set forth below:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.
The addition and revision to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) An individual may carry or possess an unloaded bow or crossbow when accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible if:
(A) The individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the bow or crossbow; and
(B) The possession of the bow or crossbow is in compliance with the law of the State in which the park area is located.
(e) The superintendent may issue a permit to carry or possess a weapon that is not otherwise authorized, a trap, or a net under the following circumstances:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of the public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the public comment period for the proposed approval of Rhode Island's enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. The proposed rule published in the
Written comments must be received on or before April 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0436 at
Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number: (617) 918-1660, email:
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for Reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Joe Redcloud on behalf of Oceti Sakowin Tribal Utility Authority, and John J. Heitmann on behalf of Telrite Corporation d/b/a Life Wireless; i-wireless, LLC; and AmeriMex Communications Corp. d/b/a SafetyNet Wireless.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 19, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 27, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Jessica Campbell, phone: 202-418-3609,
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3087, released February 22, 2018. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by April 2, 2018. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the effects of controlling and eradicating non-native invasive plants and restoring native vegetation on national forest lands in Nevada. The EIS will analyze actions to be implemented on known infested areas, as well as on infested areas that may be discovered over the next 15 years using a variety of tools, methods, and products.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received in writing by April 16, 2018. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected in September 2018, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected in May 2019.
Electronic comments are encouraged. Electronic comments should be submitted through the comment section at
For additional information concerning this project, please contact James Winfrey, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, at 775-355-5308 or
Invasive plants have been identified as a major threat to the biological diversity and ecological integrity in and near the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF). Invasive plants displace native plants; reduce habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock; diminish populations of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; alter soil properties and productivity; change the intensity and frequency of wildfires; and impact recreation opportunities.
The HTNF encompasses approximately 5.6 million acres across the state of Nevada, with land in Carson, Clark, Douglas, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Washoe, and White Pine counties. There are approximately 28,500 acres identified as being infested with invasive, non-native, and/or State-listed noxious weeds. These invasive plant infestations have a high potential to expand on lands within and adjacent to the HTNF, degrading desired plant communities and the values provided by those communities.
Forestlands are also threatened by “potential invaders,” invasive plants that have not been found on the HTNF but are known to occur in adjacent lands, counties, or states. Infestations can be controlled and eradicated, and native vegetation can be restored, through the use of specific management practices. A clear and comprehensive integrated invasive plan management strategy would allow for the implementation of timely and effective invasive plant management and prevention for projects and programs on the HTNF. In the absence of an aggressive invasive plant management program, the number, density, and distribution of invasive plants on the forest will continue to increase.
The purpose of this analysis is to update current management to provide for integrated and timely management of invasive species, now and in the future, with the goal of promoting healthy and thriving native plant communities across the HTNF. The proposal is in response to an underlying need to implement management direction as described in the Regulatory Framework section below.
The need for comprehensive and aggressive management of invasive plant species is multifaceted:
The HTNF proposes to implement adaptive and integrated invasive plant treatments on current and future infested areas using tools and products currently available, and those that may become available in the next 15 years. Activities would be implemented with partners at the federal, state, and local level where opportunities exist. To provide for “Early Detection Rapid Response” (EDRR), the Forest would design a plan that allows treatment of invasive plant infestations located outside of currently identified infested areas. Infestations outside of currently identified areas may include new sites that arise in the future, or sites that currently exist, but have not been identified in Forest inventories to date. The intent of EDRR is to allow timely control, so that new infestations can be treated when they are small, preventing establishment and spread, while reducing the costs and potential side effects of treatment.
Proposed control methods would be based on integrated pest management principles and methods known to be effective for each target species. They include, but are not limited to, manual mechanical techniques, such as mowing and pulling; biological control agents, such as pathogens, insects, and controlled grazing; prescribed fire; and herbicides (including aerial and ground-based application methods) that target specific invasive plant species. Restoration actions include planting, seeding, and fertilizing using a variety of equipment and methods. Control, eradication, and restoration methods could be employed alone or in combination to achieve the most effective results. Treatments over a number of years may be necessary to achieve control, eradication, and restoration goals.
Treatment methods would be based on the extent, location, type, and character of an infestation and would be implemented using project design features developed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects.
Restoration activities would be designed and implemented based on the conditions found in and around infested areas. Both active and passive (allowing plants on site to fill in a treated area) revegetation would be considered. Restoration techniques would be assessed and implemented in order to
The Forest Service will be the lead federal agency in accordance with
The responsible official for this EIS is William A. Dunkelberger, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431.
The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to treat invasive plants and conduct restoration activities on the Nevada portion of the HTNF, and if so, what methods and strategies (including adaptive management and EDRR) will be used to contain, control, or eradicate invasive plants.
A permit from the State of Nevada would be required prior to use of prescribed fire. Pesticide applicators would be certified as required by the Nevada Department of Agriculture, and all other permits required by regulatory agencies would be obtained prior to implementation.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from federal, state, and local agencies, American Indian Tribes, as well as other individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed project. Comments on the proposed project should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action, describing as clearly and completely as possible any issues or concerns the commenter has with the proposal. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this EIS, and will be available on request for public inspection (see
Comments that would be most useful are those concerning developing or refining the proposed action, site specific concerns, and those concerns that can help us develop treatments that would be responsive to our goal to control, contain, or eradicate invasive plants.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Public meetings are anticipated to be held following publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
International Converter (IC) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Iuka, Mississippi. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 23, 2018.
The applicant indicates that it will be submitting a separate application for FTZ designation at the IC facility under FTZ 158. The facility is used for the production of insulation facer using a wet-bond or dry-bond lamination process. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt IC from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. For foreign-status components subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) investigations/orders, the applicant only requests authority to use such components in the company's export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below not subject to AD/CVD orders/investigations, IC would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Printed duplex insulation facer consisting of paper backed with aluminum foil; not printed duplex insulation facer consisting of paper backed with aluminum foil; printed triplex insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side; not printed triplex insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side; printed quadlaminate insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side, and fabric scrim on one outer layer; and, not printed quadlaminate insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side, and fabric scrim on one outer layer (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.7%). IC has indicated that all scrap/waste from the lamination process would be exported. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Aluminum foil in rolls, 0.00025 inches thick; aluminum foil in rolls, 0.00027 inches thick; aluminum foil in rolls, 0.000285 inches thick; and, nonwoven polyethylene terephthalate scrim fabric, in rolls, 33.84 grams per square meter (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.8%). The request indicates that the aluminum foil is subject to AD and CVD investigations if imported from a certain country. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). As noted above, the request indicates that any aluminum foil subject to an AD/CVD investigation/order would be used only in production for export.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 11, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, grantee of FTZ 78, requesting subzone status for the facilities of CEVA Freight LLC, located in Mount Juliet and Lebanon, Tennessee. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 26, 2018.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 11, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 26, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
International Converter (IC) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Caldwell, Ohio. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 23, 2018.
The applicant indicates that it will be submitting a separate application for FTZ designation at the IC facility under FTZ 138. The facility is used for the production of insulation facer using a wet-bond or dry-bond lamination process. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt IC from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. For foreign-status components subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) investigations/orders, the applicant only requests authority to use such components in the company's export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below not subject to AD/CVD orders/investigations, IC would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Printed duplex insulation facer consisting of paper backed with aluminum foil; not printed duplex insulation facer consisting of paper backed with aluminum foil; printed triplex insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side; not printed triplex insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side; printed quadlaminate insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side, and fabric scrim on one outer layer; and, not printed quadlaminate insulation facer, consisting of paper with aluminum foil on either side, and fabric scrim on one outer layer (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.7%). IC has indicated that all scrap/waste from the lamination process would be exported. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include: aluminum foil in rolls, 0.00025 inches thick; aluminum foil in rolls, 0.00027 inches thick; aluminum foil in rolls, 0.000285 inches thick; and, nonwoven polyethylene terephthalate scrim fabric, in rolls, 33.84 grams per square meter (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.8%). The request indicates that the aluminum foil is subject to AD and CVD investigations if imported from a certain country. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). As noted above, the request indicates that any aluminum foil subject to an AD/CVD investigation/order would be used only in production for export.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 11, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
For the final results of this review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) continues to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to PT Sunhere Buana International's (PT Sunhere) exports of uncovered innerspring units (innersprings) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable March 2, 2018.
Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413.
On November 7, 2017, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (
As noted above, we received no comments on the
As no parties submitted comments on the
We have not calculated any assessment (or cash deposit) rates in this administrative review, because we applied AFA to PT Sunhere. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For PT Sunhere's Chinese-origin merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be 234.51 percent); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity (
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce applied AFA to PT Sunhere, there are no calculations to disclose.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hotel Providence, 139 Mathewson Street, Providence, RI 02903; phone: (401) 861-8000.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scallop Advisory Panel will receive an update on measures expected to be adopted in Framework Adjustment 29. They will also review the general workload for 2018 based on Council priorities and initial progress on these work items. Other business may be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hotel Providence, 139 Mathewson Street, Providence, RI 02903; phone: (401) 861-8000.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scallop Committee will receive an update on measures expected to be adopted in Framework Adjustment 29. They will also review the general workload for 2018 based on Council priorities and initial progress on these work items. Other business may be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft environmental impact analysis and hold scoping meetings; notice of availability of scoping document; request for comments.
NMFS announces its intent to prepare a draft environmental impact analysis to assess the potential effects of alternative measures under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) for management of the pelagic longline fishery. This notice announces a public process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues relating to the management of Atlantic HMS, with a focus on area-based management measures and weak hook management measures that were implemented to reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery. NMFS would use the scoping process and the draft environmental impact analysis to develop a regulatory action applicable to the pelagic longline fishery. The scoping process and draft environmental impact analysis are intended to determine if existing area-based and weak hook management measures are the best means of achieving the current management objectives and providing flexibility to adapt to fishing variability in the future, consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and other relevant Federal laws. NMFS is also announcing the availability of a scoping document describing potential measures for inclusion in a future regulatory action. NMFS will hold scoping meetings to gather public comment on potential management options for area based and weak hook requirements. The time and location details of the scoping meetings are available in the
Written comments on this NOI and the scoping document must be received on or before May 1, 2018. NMFS also will host an operator-assisted public hearing conference call and webinar March 15, 2018, from 2 to 4 p.m. EDT, providing an opportunity for individuals from all geographic areas to participate in a scoping meeting. See
You may submit comments, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0035”, by either of the following methods:
•
•
The public hearing conference call information is phone number 800-988-9546; participant passcode 27079. Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show a brief presentation via webinar followed by public comment. To join the webinar, go to:
The scoping document is available by sending your request to Craig Cockrell at the mailing address specified above, or by calling the phone numbers indicated below. The scoping document, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, and FMP amendments also may be downloaded from the HMS website at
Craig Cockrell 301-427-8503 or Jennifer Cudney 727-824-5399, or online at
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
Since implementation of Amendment 7 in 2015, NMFS has noted decreased bluefin tuna landings and dead discards concurrent with the new focus on vessel accountability in fishing practices. However, effort within the pelagic longline fishery has also decreased and quotas established for target species (
NMFS encourages participation, by all persons affected or otherwise interested in bluefin tuna area-based and weak hook management measures, in the process to determine the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed in a draft environmental impact analysis and regulatory action. All such persons are encouraged to submit written comments (see
NMFS intends to hold scoping meetings in the geographic areas that may be affected by these measures, including locations on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and will consult with the regional fishery management councils in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. After scoping has been completed and public comment gathered and analyzed, NMFS will determine if it is necessary to proceed with preparation of a draft environmental impact analysis and proposed rule, which would include additional opportunities for public comment. The scope of the draft environmental impact analysis would consist of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. Alternatives may include, but are not limited to, the following: Not amending the current regulations (
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public scoping meetings and on conference calls to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the scoping meetings and conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (
Because the rulemakings overlap for some gear types, the public scoping meetings being held in Panama City, FL, Manteo, NC, and Manahawkin, NJ will be held in conjunction with public scoping meetings for Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (shortfin mako shark management measures). The Amendment 11 presentation will likely be given first unless polling of the audience indicates another approach is appropriate. After each presentation, public comment for that issue will be received. Meeting attendees interested in this issue are encouraged to show up at the beginning of the meeting to help determine the order of the presentations. The second presentation will not start any later than 6 p.m.
The process of developing a regulatory action is expected to take approximately two years. In addition to future HMS Advisory Panel input, public comment and future analyses, there are other relevant events anticipated that may impact the development of this regulatory action, including implementation of a quota rule for Atlantic bluefin tuna and North Atlantic albacore, the three-year review of the IBQ program, and the ICCAT annual meeting in November 2018.
Until the draft environmental impact analysis and proposed rule are finalized or until other regulations are put into place, the current regulations remain in effect.
16 U.S.C. 971
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: April 1, 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.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes a product and a service from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
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 1/26/2018 (83 FR 18), 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 product and service 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 product and 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 product and service deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and service are deleted from the Procurement List:
10:00 a.m., Friday, March 9, 2018.
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board will take place.
The Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 from 7:55 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. The portion of the meeting from 7:55 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. will be closed to the public. The portion of the meeting from 2:00 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. will be open to the public.
The RFPB meeting address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA.
Alexander Sabol, (703) 681-0577 (Voice), 703-681-0002 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Reserve Forces Policy Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on March 7, 2018, of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On January 22, 2018, we published in the
March 2, 2018.
Dr. Corinne Alfeld, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20202 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In the
3.
(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities identified in an approved application.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for CSP—Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers 84.282B and 84.282E.
For further information about the pre-application meeting, contact Eddie Moat, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W259, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 401-2266 or by email:
The addresses pertinent to this competition—including the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application—can be found under
Eddie Moat, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W259, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 401-2266 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
CSP—Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer Grants) are intended to support charter schools that serve early childhood, elementary school, or secondary school students by providing grant funds to eligible applicants for the opening of new charter schools (CFDA number 84.282B) and for the replication and expansion of
The ESSA, enacted in December 2015, reauthorized and amended the ESEA. The amendments included significant changes affecting the CSP, including the
Eligible applicants are those that are qualified based on the requirements set forth in this notice. For more information on eligibility, please see section III.1. of this notice.
All
For CFDA number 84.282B, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional four points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1 and up to an additional four points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. The maximum number of points an application for CFDA number 84.282B can receive under these priorities is eight.
For CFDA number 84.282E, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional two points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1, up to an additional two points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2, and an additional two points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 3. The maximum number of points an application for CFDA number 84.282E can receive under these priorities is six.
These priorities are:
The Department believes that
In addition, the Department understands that students who are members of federally recognized Indian Tribes and their communities face unique challenges. Therefore, through this priority the Department encourages applicants to use
(i) Students in communities served by
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) Students who are members of federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Applicants may choose to respond to one or more of the priority areas and are not required to respond to each priority area in order to receive the maximum available points under this competitive preference priority.
Applicants for grants under CFDA number 84.282B or 84.282E must provide the following:
(a) A description of the roles and responsibilities of the eligible applicant, partner organizations, and
(b) A description of the quality controls agreed to between the eligible applicant and the
(c) A description of how the eligible applicant will solicit and consider input from parents and other members of the community on the implementation and operation of each
(d) A description of the eligible applicant's planned activities and expenditures of funds to support the activities described in section 4303(b)(1) of the ESEA, and how the eligible applicant will maintain financial sustainability after the end of the grant period (Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(i)(V) of the ESEA);
(e) A description of how the eligible applicant will support the use of effective parent, family, and community engagement strategies to operate each
(f) A description of how the eligible applicant has considered and planned for the transportation needs of students for each school that will receive funds (Section 4303(f)(1)(E) of the ESEA);
(g) A description of how each school that will receive funds will support all students once they are enrolled to promote retention, including by reducing the overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the classroom;
(h) A description of how each school that will receive funds will have a high degree of autonomy over budget and operations, including autonomy over personnel decisions (Section 4303(f)(2)(A) of the ESEA);
(i) A description of how the applicant will ensure that each
(j) A description of how the applicant will ensure that all eligible
(k) A description of how each school that will receive funds meets the definition of
(l) If an applicant proposes to open a new
(m) A request and justification for any waivers of Federal statutory or regulatory requirements over which the Secretary exercises administrative authority, except any such requirement relating to the elements of a
(n) A complete
(o) The applicant's most recent available independently audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
In addition to the preceding application requirements, applicants for CFDA number 84.282E must address the following application requirements.
(a) For each
(1) Information that demonstrates that the school is treated as a separate school by its authorized public chartering agency and the State, including for purposes of accountability and reporting under Title I, Part A of the ESEA;
(2) Student assessment results for all students and for each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA;
(3) Attendance and student retention rates for the most recently completed school year and, if applicable, the most recent available four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates; and
(4) Information on any significant compliance and management issues encountered within the last three school years by the existing
(a) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this definition;
(b) Is created by a
(c) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's
(d) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;
(e) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;
(f) Does not charge tuition;
(g) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
(h) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that—
(1) Admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA, if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; or
(2) In the case of a school that has an affiliated
(i) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the State;
(j) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;
(k) Operates in accordance with State law;
(l) Has a written performance contract with the
(m) May serve students in
(a) Is transferable to the institutions of higher education in the partnership; and
(b) Applies toward completion of a degree or recognized educational credential as described in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001
(a) Who is aged 3 through 21;
(b) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;
(c)(1) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;
(2)(i) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and
(ii) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or
(3) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
(d) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—
(1) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;
(2) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
(3) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (ESEA section 8101(20))
(a) Shows evidence of strong academic results, which may include strong student academic growth, as determined by a State;
(b) Has no significant issues in the areas of student safety, financial and operational management, or statutory or regulatory compliance;
(c) Has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates, where applicable, for all students served by the
(d) Has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates, where applicable, for each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that such demonstration is not required in a case in which the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. (Section 4310(8) of the ESEA)
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. The estimated range and average size of awards are based on a single 12-month budget period. We may use FY 2018 funds to support multiple 12-month budget periods for one or more grantees.
1.
(a) Applied to an authorized public chartering authority to operate a
(b) Provided adequate and timely notice to that authority. (Section 4310(6) of the ESEA).
Additionally, the
As a general matter, the Secretary considers
If an applicant has applied to an
2.
3.
4.
5.
For this competition, the maximum limit of grant funds that may be awarded per new, replicated, or expanded
In accordance with 2 CFR 200.404, applicants must ensure that all costs included in the proposed budget are reasonable and necessary in light of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Any costs determined by the Secretary to be unreasonable or unnecessary will be removed from the final approved budget.
A
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
(a) Preparing teachers, school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel, including through paying costs associated with—
(i) Providing professional development; and
(ii) Hiring and compensating, during the applicant's planning period specified in the application for funds, one or more of the following:
(A) Teachers.
(B) School leaders.
(C) Specialized instructional support personnel.
(D) Acquiring supplies, training, equipment (including technology), and educational materials (including developing and acquiring instructional materials).
(E) Carrying out necessary renovations to ensure that a new school building
(F) Providing one-time, startup costs associated with providing transportation to students to and from the
(G) Carrying out community engagement activities, which may include paying the cost of student and staff recruitment.
(H) Providing for other appropriate, non-sustained costs related to the opening of new
A grant awarded by the Secretary under this competition may be for a period of not more than five years, of which the grantee may use not more than 18 months for planning and program design. (Section 4303(d)(1)(B) of the ESEA). We establish that applicants may only propose to support one charter school per grant application, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
1.
In evaluating an application for a Developer Grant, the Secretary considers the following criteria:
(a)
(i)
The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for
(ii)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (up to 15 points); and
(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (up to 15 points).
(iii)
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (up to 2 points); and
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 18 points).
(iv)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(v)
The extent to which the eligible applicant is prepared to continue to operate
(b)
(i)
The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for
(ii)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (up to 15 points); and
(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (up to 15 points).
(iii)
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (up to 1 point);
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 9 points).
(iv)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(v)
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the
(1) The degree to which the applicant has demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, attending the
(2) The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for
(3) The extent to which
(vi)
The extent to which the eligible applicant is prepared to continue to operate
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
(a)
These three measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. The evaluation must serve to determine whether the
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Secretary encourages the applicant to consider developing project-specific
For technical assistance in developing effective
(4)
If the applicant does not have experience with the collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of its capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for the proposed project.
6.
In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 1, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Jay Wrobel, EE-5A/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, by fax at 202-586-9234, or by email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to Jay Wrobel, EE-5A/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, by fax at 202-586-9234, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Energy Policy Act of 2005 sec 911—Energy Efficiency and sec 106 Voluntary Commitments to Reduce Industrial Energy Intensity.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
GridAmerica Holdings Inc. (GridAmerica) has applied for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the United States border with Canada.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 2, 2018.
Comments should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260 or via electronic mail at
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038.
On December 22, 2017, GridAmerica filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit for the Granite State Power Link Project (GSPL Project). GridAmerica is a direct wholly owned unregulated subsidiary of National Grid USA (“National Grid USA” and its subsidiaries, collectively, “National Grid”). The Applicant has its principal place of business in Waltham, MA.
GridAmerica proposes to construct, operate, maintain and connect a 1,200 megawatt (MW) overhead high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission cable system to deliver electricity from Quebec. The GSPL Project will consist of new electric transmission facilities between the Canadian Provence of Quebec and Monroe, New Hampshire. From the U.S. border, two new 315 kilovolt (kV) overhead double circuit alternating current (AC) lines, supported by a single structure, will extend from the international border between Canada and the United States for approximately 0.5 miles to an alternating current/direct current (AC/DC) converter station located in Norton, Vermont. A new ±400kV overhead High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) electric transmission line will connect the new Norton Converter Station to a new DC/AC converter station located in Monroe, New Hampshire. The path of the transmission line will parallel the right-of-way of an existing Quebec-New England HVDC line. From the Monroe Converter station, a new single circuit 345kV line will extend approximately 215 feet to a new substation constructed by New England Power where it will then interconnect into the New England electric grid. The proposed GSPL Line will extend a distance of approximately 59 miles from the U.S.-Canada border to Monroe, NH.
Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888, (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities), 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), as amended.
Additional copies of such comments shall be filed with: Mr. Joseph Rossignoli Director, U.S. Business Development, GridAmerica Holdings Inc., 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA 02451,
Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE may consider the environmental impacts of the proposed project; the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions; and any other factors that DOE may also deem relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate 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 the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for exemption from licensing for the Camp McDowell Project, to be located on Clear Creek, near Nauvoo, in Winston County, Alabama, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that issuing an exemption for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's website at
For further information, contact Monte TerHaar at (202) 502-6035 or
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 the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Conflict of Interest” (EPA ICR No. 1550.11, OMB Control No. 2030-0023) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0028, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Pamela Leftrict, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-9463; email address
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
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:
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
Notice, regular meeting.
Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).
The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on March 8, 2018, from 2:00 p.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056,
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The collection is necessary to implement certain disclosure requirements that are part of the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rule. In a Report and Order in WT Docket No. 01-309, FCC 03-168, adopted and released in September 2003, implementing a mandate under the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, the Commission required digital wireless phone manufacturers and service providers to make certain digital wireless phones capable of effective use with hearing aids, label certain phones they sold with information about their compatibility with hearing aids, and report to the Commission (at first every six months, then on an annual basis) on the numbers and types of hearing aid-compatible phones they were producing or offering to the public. These reporting requirements were subsequently amended on several occasions, and the existing, OMB-approved collection under this OMB control number includes these modifications.
On November 19, 2015, the Commission adopted final rules in a Fourth Report and Order, FCC 15-155 (Fourth Report and Order), that, among other changes, expanded the scope of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions to cover handsets used with any digital terrestrial mobile service that enables two-way real-time voice communications among members of the public or a substantial portion of the public, including through the use of pre-installed software applications. Prior to 2018, the hearing aid compatibility provisions were limited only to handsets used with two-way switched voice or data services classified as Commercial Mobile Radio Service, and only to the extent they were provided over networks meeting certain architectural requirements that enable frequency reuse and seamless handoff. As a result of the Fourth Report and Order, beginning January 1, 2018, all device manufacturers and Tier I carriers that offer handsets falling under the expanded scope of covered handsets are required to comply with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions, including annual reporting requirements on FCC Form 655. For other service providers that are not Tier I carriers, the expanded scope of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions applies beginning April 1, 2018.
Following release of the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission is required to amend the FCC Form 655 to reflect the newly expanded scope of handsets covered by the hearing aid compatibility provisions, as well as to capture information regarding existing disclosure requirements clarified by the Commission in the Fourth Report and Order. As a consequence of the Fourth Report and Order, FCC Form 655 filing and other requirements will apply to those newly-covered handsets offered by device manufacturers and service providers that have already been reporting annually on their compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility provisions, as well to any device manufacturers and service providers that were previously exempt because they did not offer any covered handsets or services prior to 2018.
As a result, the Commission is requesting a revision of this collection in order to implement the final rules promulgated in the Fourth Report and Order, which expanded the scope of the rules due to a shift from Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) to digital mobile service. We estimate that the expanded scope will increase the potential number of respondents subject
The following item has been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, February 22, 2018, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of February 15, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 1, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
47 CFR 73.1620(a)(1) require permittees of a nondirectional AM or FM station, or a nondirectional or directional TV station to notify the FCC upon beginning of program tests. An application for license must be filed within 10 days of this notification.
47 CFR 73.1620(a)(2) require a permittee of an AM or FM station with a directional antenna to file a request for program test authority 10 days prior to date on which it desires to begin program tests. This is filed in conjunction with an application for license.
47 CFR 73.1620(a)(3) require a licensee of an FM station replacing a directional antenna without changes to file a modification of the license application within 10 days after commencing operations with the replacement antenna.
47 CFR 73.1620(a)(4) requires a permittee of an AM station with a directional antenna to file a request for program test authority 10 days prior to the date on which it desires to begin program test.
47 CFR 73.1620(a)(5) requires that, except for permits subject to successive license terms, a permittee of an LPFM station may begin program tests upon notification to the FCC in Washington,
47 CFR 73.1620(b) allows the FCC to right to revoke, suspend, or modify program tests by any station without right of hearing for failure to comply adequately with all terms of the construction permit or the provision of 47 CFR 73.1690(c) for a modification of license application, or in order to resolve instances of interference. The FCC may also require the filing of a construction permit application to bring the station into compliance with the Commission's rules and policies.
47 CFR 73.1620(f) requires licensees of UHF TV stations, assigned to the same allocated channel which a 1000 watt UHF translator station is authorized to use, to notify the licensee of the translator station at least 10 days prior to commencing or resuming operation and certify to the FCC that such advance notice has been given.
47 CFR 73.1620(g) requires permittees to report any deviations from their promises, if any, in their application for license to cover their construction permit (FCC Form 302) and on the first anniversary of their commencement of program tests.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 2, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Additionally, the Order adopted a rule requiring utilities to make available and keep up-to-date a reasonably sufficient list of approved contractors to perform surveys and make-ready work in the communications space of a utility pole. If an attacher uses a utility-approved contractor, then it must notify the utility and invite the utility to send a representative to oversee the work.
Finally, the Order also broadened the existing enforcement process by permitting incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to file complaints alleging that the pole attachment rates, terms, or conditions demanded by utilities are unjust or unreasonable. If an incumbent LEC can demonstrate that it is similarly situated to an attacher that is a telecommunications carrier or a cable television system (through relevant evidence, including pole attachment agreements), then it can gain comparable pole attachment rates, terms, and condition as the similarly-situated carrier. The paperwork burdens for this provision are contained in OMB Control No. 3060-0392. The Order also encourages incumbent LECs that benefit from lower pole attachment costs to file data at the Commission that demonstrate that the benefits are being passed on to consumers.
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 29, 2018.
1.
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. AHRQ has accepted a notification from NCH Healthcare System of the voluntary relinquishment of its status as a PSO and has delisted it 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 31, 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.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from the NCH Healthcare System, PSO, a component entity of the NCH Healthcare System, PSO number P0191, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the NCH Healthcare System, PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 31, 2018.
The NCH Healthcare System, PSO has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO and of section 3.108(c)(2)(ii) regarding disposition of PSWP consistent with section 3.108(b)(3). According to section 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the next meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education strategies concerning CMS programs, initiatives, and priorities. This meeting is open to the public.
Lynne Johnson, Acting Designated Federal Official, Office of Communications, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, 410-786-0090, email
The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and
In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.
The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance Marketplace
The scope of this Panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 19, 2017, and will terminate on January 19, 2019 unless renewed by appropriate action.
Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:
• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance Marketplace
• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance Marketplace
• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance Marketplace
• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.
• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.
• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.
The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the March 21, 2018 meeting will include the following:
Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the
The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by contacting the DFO at the address listed in the
The REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13) establishes minimum standards for the issuance of state-issued driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards. It prohibits federal agencies from accepting an official driver's license or ID card from a state for any official purpose unless the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security determines that the state meets these standards. Beginning October 2015, photo IDs (such as a valid driver's license) issued by a state or territory not in compliance with the Real ID Act will not be accepted as identification to enter federal buildings. Visitors from these states/territories will need to provide alternative proof of identification (such as a valid passport) to gain entrance into federal buildings. The current list of states from which a federal agency may accept driver's licenses for an official purpose is found at
We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of a government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into HHH Building, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.
Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting.
42 U.S.C. 217a, sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1314(f), sec. 1114(f) of the Social Security Act; and Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2); 41 CFR 102-3.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Proper Labeling of Honey and Honey Products.” The guidance advises firms on the proper labeling of honey and honey products to help ensure that honey and honey products are not adulterated or misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Andrea Krause, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Proper Labeling of Honey and Honey Products.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
In the
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence on the Beneficial Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates Submitted as a Citizen Petition (21 CFR 10.30).” The guidance describes our views on the scientific evidence needed and the approach to evaluating the scientific evidence on the physiological effects to human health of isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates that are added to foods.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Paula R. Trumbo, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2579.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Scientific Evaluation of the Evidence on the Beneficial Physiological Effects of Isolated or Synthetic Non-Digestible Carbohydrates Submitted as a Citizen Petition (21 CFR 10.30).” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
In the
In the
The guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in § 101.9 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0813.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” The draft guidance is intended to describe FDA's interpretation of terms used in the definitions of “suspect product” and “illegitimate product” in the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), for purposes of trading
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 2, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Sarah Venti, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3130,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” On November 27, 2013, the DSCSA (Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. Section 202 of the DSCSA added section 581 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee), which sets forth definitions for the DSCSA. “Suspect product” is defined in section 581(21) of the FD&C Act, and “illegitimate product” is defined in section 581(8).
FDA is announcing the availability of this draft guidance to describe the Agency's interpretation of terms used in the definitions of “suspect product” and “illegitimate product” in the DSCSA, for purposes of trading partners' verification obligations (including notification) under section 582(b)(4), (c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4), respectively of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1(b)(4), (c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4)). The draft guidance lays out FDA's current understanding of the following key terms for such purposes:
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on definitions of suspect product and illegitimate product for verification obligations under the DSCSA. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed: List of Products for Each Product Category.” The guidance provides examples of products that belong to product categories included in the tables of Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (RACCs) per Eating Occasion established in our regulations.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Jillonne Kevala, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1450.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed: List of Products for Each Product Category.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance is intended to help industry comply with the statutory requirement, under section 403(q)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(1)(A)(i)), that food that is intended for human consumption and offered for sale bear nutrition information that provides a serving size
In the
In the
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a regional public meeting entitled “U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada Joint Regional Consultation on the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH).” The purpose of the public meeting is to provide information and solicit public input on the current activities of the ICH, as well as the upcoming ICH Assembly Meeting and the Expert Working Group Meetings in Kobe, Japan, scheduled for June 4 through 7, 2018. The topics to be addressed at the public meeting are the current ICH guideline topics under development that will be discussed at the forthcoming ICH Assembly Meeting in Kobe.
The public meeting will be held on Friday, April 6, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by April 30, 2018. See the
The public meeting will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, Rm. 1503 (Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. The meeting will also be broadcast on the web, allowing participants to join in person OR via the web. For those who will attend in person, the entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely, filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 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 in the sections below (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
Amanda Roache, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1176, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4548,
The ICH, formerly known as the International Conference on Harmonisation, was established in 1990 as a joint regulatory/industry project to improve, through harmonization, the efficiency of the process for developing and registering new medicinal products in Europe, Japan, and the United States without compromising the regulatory requirements for safety and effectiveness. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce regional differences in technical regulatory requirements for pharmaceutical products while preserving a consistently high standard for drug efficacy, safety, and quality. In 2015, the ICH was reformed to establish ICH as a true global initiative that expands beyond the previous ICH members. More involvement from regulators around the world is expected, as they join counterparts from Europe, Japan, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland as ICH observers and regulatory members. Expanded involvement is also anticipated from global regulated pharmaceutical industry parties, joining as ICH observers and industry members. The reforms build on a 25-year track record of successful delivery of harmonized guidelines for global pharmaceutical development and their regulation.
ICH guidelines are developed following a five-step process. In Step 1, experts from the different ICH regions work together to prepare a consensus draft of the Step 1 Technical Document. The Step 1 Technical Document is submitted to the ICH Assembly to request endorsement under Step 2a of the process. Step 2b is a “Regulators only” step in which the ICH regulatory members review the Step 2a Final Technical Document and take any actions, which might include revisions that they deem necessary, to develop the draft “Guideline.” Step 3 of the process begins with the public consultation process conducted by each of the ICH regulatory members in their respective regions, and this step concludes with completion and acceptance of any revisions that need to be made to the Step 2b draft guideline in response to public comments. Adoption of the new guideline occurs in Step 4. Following adoption, the harmonized guideline moves to Step 5, the final step of the process when it is implemented by each of the regulatory members in their respective regions. The ICH process has achieved significant harmonization of the technical requirements for the approval of pharmaceuticals for human use in the ICH regions since 1990. More information on the current ICH process and structure can be found at the following website:
The topics for discussion at this public meeting include the current guidelines under development under the ICH. These guidelines include the following:
Topics Currently Under Regional Public Consultation (Step 3 of ICH Process):
Selected Topics Recently Finalized (Step 4 of ICH Process):
Electronic Standards and MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities):
Additional Ongoing Topics:
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register by April 3, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public meeting will be provided beginning at 9:30 a.m.
The agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the internet at
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Amanda Roache (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments—Small Entity Compliance Guide.” The small entity compliance guide (SECG) is intended to help small entities comply with a final rule we issued in the
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management
• 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.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the SECG to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-800), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Jillonne Kevala, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1450.
In the
We examined the economic implications of the final rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and determined that the final rules on nutrition labeling, taken as a whole, will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28), we are making available the SECG to explain the actions that a small entity must take to comply with the rule.
We are issuing the SECG consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
The guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in §§ 101.9 and 101.12 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0381.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the SECG at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Standardization of Data and Documentation Practices for Product Tracing.” The draft guidance elaborates on the standards for the interoperable exchange of transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements (product tracing information)
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 1, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Connie Jung, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3130,
On November 27, 2013, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. Section 202 of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), which added new sections 581 and 582 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee and 360eee-1), set forth new definitions and requirements related to product tracing. The DSCSA outlines critical steps to build an electronic, interoperable system by November 27, 2023, that will identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States.
Under section 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FD&C Act, certain trading partners in the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain (manufacturers, wholesale distributors, dispensers, and repackagers) are required to capture, maintain, and provide the subsequent purchaser of certain prescription drug products with product tracing information. These requirements took effect on January 1, 2015, for manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and repackagers, and on July 1, 2015, for dispensers.
As required by section 582(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, FDA established initial standards in 2014 to facilitate the interoperable exchange of transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements between trading partners (79 FR 70878, November 28, 2014). Those standards help trading partners comply with the requirements of section 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FD&C Act to provide the subsequent trading partners with product tracing information, in paper or electronic format, through the extension and/or use of current systems and processes.
This draft guidance elaborates on the initial standards that FDA established in 2014. It is intended to assist trading partners in standardizing the data that are contained in the product tracing information they must provide to subsequent purchasers. It is also intended to help trading partners understand the data elements that should be included in the product tracing information, particularly in situations where they are permitted by law to provide other trading partners with product tracing information that omits certain elements that would otherwise be required. In addition, the draft guidance recommends documentation practices that trading partners can use to satisfy the requirements of section 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FD&C Act.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA about standardization of data and documentation practices for the exchange of product tracing information. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance includes information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). FDA intends to solicit public comment and obtain OMB approval for any information collections recommended in this guidance that are new or that would represent modifications to those previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations or guidances.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “E18 Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. This guidance focuses on the general principles of collecting, processing, transporting, storing, and disposing of genomic samples or data in clinical studies. The guidance is intended to provide harmonized principles of genomic sampling and of management of genomic data in clinical studies to foster interactions amongst stakeholders, including drug developers, investigators, and regulators; and to encourage genomic research within clinical studies.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; the Office of Communication and Education, Division of Industry and Consumer Education, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4621, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “E18 Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data; International Council for Harmonisation.” In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world have participated in many important initiatives to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to enhance harmonization and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; FDA; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The standing members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the members of the ICH Association.
The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers. The ICH Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA guidance.
In the
After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guideline, a final draft of the guideline was submitted to the ICH Assembly and endorsed by the regulatory agencies in September 2017.
The guidance provides guidance on genomic sampling and management of genomic data from interventional and non-interventional clinical studies. The guidance addresses use of genomic samples and data irrespective of the timing of analyses and both prespecified and non-prespecified use. The focus is on the general principles of collecting, processing, transporting, storing, and disposing of genomic samples or data, within the scope of an informed consent policy or practice. The technical aspects of genomic sampling are also discussed when appropriate, recognizing the rapidly evolving technological advances in genomic sampling and data generation. The guidance also intends to increase awareness and provide a reminder regarding subjects' privacy, protection of the data generated, the need to obtain suitable informed consent, and the need to consider transparency of findings in line with local legislation and regulations.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “E18 Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755. The collections of information in the guidance “E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1)” have been approved under 0910-0843.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (a) announces the availability of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report (Scientific Report); and (b) solicits written comments on the Scientific Report.
Written comments on the Scientific Report will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. ET on April 2, 2018.
The Scientific Report is available on the internet at
Designated Federal Officer, 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, Richard D. Olson, MD, MPH and/or Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Katrina L. Piercy, Ph.D., RD, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), HHS; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL-100; Rockville, MD 20852; Telephone: (240) 453-8280. Email:
The inaugural
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0011, Applications for Private Aids to Navigation and for Class I Private Aids to Navigation on Artificial Islands and Fixed Structures. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before April 2, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0952] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0952], and must be received by April 2, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 58819, December 14, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited one comment. The commenter stated that it's their belief that the current system of the Coast Guard with respect to the new owner or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0012, Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 1, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0134] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; Title 44 United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0005, Application and Permit to Handle Hazardous Material; without change. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 1, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0138] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0138], and must be received by May 1, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0068, State Access to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for removal costs under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 1, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0135] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0135], and must be received by May 1, 2018.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain ethernet gateway products known as AirLink gateways. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded in the final determination that the United States is the country of origin of the AirLink gateways for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on February 23, 2018. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR § 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within April 2, 2018.
Ross M. Cunningham, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202) 325-0034.
Notice is hereby given that on February 23, 2018, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain ethernet gateway products known as AirLink gateways, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H250154, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the programming and downloading operations performed in the United States, using U.S.-origin software, substantially transform non-TAA country AirLink gateways. Therefore, the country of origin of the AirLink gateways is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to your letter dated October 25, 2013, and your supplemental submissions dated February 27, 2014 and March 21, 2014, requesting a final determination on behalf of your client, Sierra Wireless (“Sierra”), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 177). A meeting was held at our office on October 3, 2014, where you and your client explained the software development process and the product. A further submission dated April 18, 2017, was provided.
This final determination concerns the country of origin of Sierra's secure Ethernet gateway products (“gateways”). We note that as a U.S. importer, Sierra is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
Per your letter dated September 22, 2014, we have reviewed your request for confidentiality pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(7) with respect to the information submitted. As that information constitutes privileged or confidential matters, it has been bracketed and will be deleted from any published versions.
Sierra produces gateways that provide secure internet connectivity for mobile stations allowing a variety of enterprises, mainly law enforcement, to monitor their infrastructure and instruments by transmitting and receiving data from a central location. The gateways are designed for entities that require 24/7 unmanned operation of remote assets and broadband connectivity. The gateways are frequently installed in police cars and provide a 24/7 internet connection and allow police officers to access information stored in the central location. The gateway also acts as a firewall server, which ensures that the connection between the mobile station and the main office is secure and that unauthorized persons cannot access information transmitted over the internet. Sierra's submissions include details on four different gateway products, branded “AirLink,” to be covered by this final determination: GX400, GX440, LS300, and ES440. The different series of gateways are designed differently to meet the needs of a variety of customers
The hardware components consist of a case/kit that holds the module, a printed circuit assembly (“PCA”) that includes a radio module, a decorative cover placed over the case/kit, and various nuts and screws to close the case/kit and hold the cover in place. All the hardware components are designed in the United States and produced and assembled in China. Sierra imports the completed gateways into the United States, where authorized retailers install the ALEOS software. Sierra states that, at the time of importation, the fully assembled gateway is not functional because it does not contain the ALEOS software. Sierra also states that the gateway in its condition as imported has only the basic ability to communicate with a software installation tool to facilitate the download of the ALEOS software. The radio module contains firmware to control its internal function of sending and receiving to/from the network, which cannot take place until the ALEOS software is loaded onto the gateway. Sierra states that the PCA design and the firmware in the radio module are proprietary and are designed to work only with the ALEOS software and that any
ALEOS was developed entirely in the United States in five steps:
Since 1993, approximately [3] engineer hours were spent in the development of the ALEOS software in the United States. Some minor software maintenance, such as repair and validation, is conducted in Canada and France, which accounts for approximately [ ]% of the engineer hours spent. Sierra states that the gateways are approximately $45 at import and after the ALEOS software is installed, are valued at between $479 and $899. We assume for purposes of this decision that the figures provided are correct. You also submitted an affidavit from the Vice President of Marketing at Sierra describing the software and installation process, a user guide, an end-user warranty, and a PowerPoint presentation that included photographs and component lists.
CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
You argue that the country of origin of the GX400, GX440, LS300, and ES440 gateway products is the United States because you believe that the last substantial transformation occurs in the United States. You state that the fully-assembled gateways are not functional when they are imported into the United States and that the gateways gain their ability to function as intended only after U.S.-origin software is installed in the United States. In support, you cite, among others,
In
CBP has also focused on where the programming took place. For example, in HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016, CBP considered the country of origin of network transceivers in two different scenarios. In Scenario One, the importer purchased “blank” transceivers from Asia. The transceivers were then loaded with U.S.-developed software in the United States, which made the transceivers functional. In Scenario Two, the importer purchased the transceivers with a generic program preinstalled, which was then removed so that the U.S.-developed software could be installed. We held that, in Scenario One, because the transceivers could not function as network devices without the U.S.-developed software, the transceivers were substantially transformed as a result of the downloading of the U.S.-developed software performed in the United States. However, in Scenario Two, because the transceivers were already functional when imported, the identity of the transceivers was not changed by the downloading performed in the United States, and no substantial transformation occurred.
Similarly, in HQ H175415 dated October 4, 2011, CBP held that imported Ethernet switches underwent a substantial transformation after U.S.-origin software was downloaded onto the devices' flash memory in the United States, which allowed the devices to function. In China, the printed circuit board assemblies, chassis, top cover, power supply, and fan were assembled. Then, in the United States, U.S.-origin software, which gave the hardware the capability of functioning as local area network devices, was loaded onto the hardware. CBP noted that the U.S.-origin software “enables the imported switches to interact with other network switches” and that “[w]ithout this software, the imported devices could not function as Ethernet switches.” Under these circumstances, CBP held that the country of origin of the local area network devices was the United States.
In each case, the nature of the article and the effect of the processing performed must be evaluated. Here, like the network devices and Ethernet switches at issue in HQ H175415, HQ H052325, and HQ H258960 (under Scenario One), the Sierra GX400, GX440, LS300, and ES440 gateways are imported into the United States in a non-functional state. It is only after the installation of U.S.-origin software that the devices can function as intended. Moreover, as in HQ H175415, HQ H052325, and HQ H258960, the gateway products at issue here derive their core functionality as communication devices from the installation of the U.S.-developed software. We note that this case is distinguishable from Scenario 2 in HQ H258960, as Sierra's products do not contain pre-installed software when they are imported from China, and they are non-functional at the time of importation to the United States. Therefore, we find that the country of origin of the Sierra GX400, GX440, LS300, and ES440 gateways is the United States.
Based on the facts provided, the country of origin of the gateways is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of aluminum honeycomb panels. CBP has concluded in the final determination that for purposes of U.S. Government procurement the assembly of the parts in the United States does not substantially transform the aluminum panels.
The final determination was issued on February 21, 2018. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within April 2, 2018.
Joy Marie Virga, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202-325-1511).
Notice is hereby given that on 02/21/18, CBP issued a final determination concerning the aluminum honeycomb panels, which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. The final determination, HQ H290528, was issued at the request of Aliva Chemica E Sistemi SRL, under procedures set forth at 19 C.F.R. Part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP was asked to consider whether the cutting, bending, and assembly of aluminum parts constitutes a substantial transformation. In the final determination, CBP concluded that these activities do not constitute a substantial transformation and the origin of the honeycomb panels remains the original country of manufacturing.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the
This is in response to your request of June 5, 2017, on behalf of Aliva Chemica E Sistemi SRL (“Aliva”) for a final determination concerning the country of origin of a product that you refer to as “aluminum honeycomb panels,” pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.21,
As a foreign producer of merchandise, Aliva is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
The merchandise at issue are Aliva aluminum honeycomb panels, which will be used as architectural finished coating panels for wall and tunnel areas in train stations. The panels come in two variations: straight and curved. Each installed panel will contain a casing, a core, and two mounting blades.
The casing is a flat sheet of pre-painted aluminum alloy which will be supplied in both perforated and non-perforated variations as required for aesthetic appearance. The flat sheet is produced in Italy in dimensions of two feet in width and variable lengths. These aluminum alloy sheets are painted through a reverse coil process and will include anti-graffiti characteristics as required by the architectural specification. The sheets are then transferred to a specialized processing factory in Italy that cuts the sheet to the final dimensions, and bends three of the side edges to create the casing that will house the honeycomb core. Along one side of the casing, the edge is left flat and two bending lines are engraved on the back of this edge for reference during the production process in the United States. The casing will then be transported to a U.S. production facility to receive and secure the core. Workers at the U.S. production facility will also drill holes at prescribed locations to attach the core.
The core consists of two hard layers called skins and a layer of aluminum honeycomb made up of 3000 series aluminum alloy with hexagonal cells that are 80 microns thick. The skins can either be coated with five microns of primer or pre-painted black with an anti-graffiti finish. The skins are glued to the honeycomb panel to create a singular panel referred to as the core.
The Italian manufacturer will supply and transport the core sheets in bulk to a U.S. manufacturing facility. Each core sheet will produce three to 16 cores. All cores for the curved panels will be cut-to-size to fit the casing in Italy but cores for the straight panels will be cut to size at the U.S. facility. Eight holes are drilled through the back of the core for attachment of the mounting blades. However, all the cores for curved panels will be cut and drilled in Italy.
The mounting blades are aluminum alloy sheets of unknown origin extruded into L-shaped brackets. Two mounting blades will be attached to the back of each core on either side. The mounting blades are extruded, machined, bent, and cut-to-size in the United States before being secured to the core. Two different profiles are produced for the right and left blades, which hook the finished panel onto Aliva's framing system.
In the United States, the core is inserted into the case and then the flat edge of each casing will be bent into place with specialized aluminum bending equipment. An average of 16 holes will be drilled into each panel, and 16 stainless steel rivets will be fastened with a specialized riveting tool to secure the core and casing together. Finally, each mounting blade is secured to the finished panel with four stainless steel rivets.
According to Aliva, the processing in the United States requires skilled labor and increases the value of the component parts. Aliva estimates that the work required to incorporate the casing, core and mounting blades into a singular panel in the United States will take approximately 46 minutes of labor. The importer further states that the processes performed in the United States to produce all of the panels will require “hundreds of thousands of dollars of labor.” Aliva indicates that each panel will have a significantly increased value over the collective value of the individual parts (casing, core, and mounting blades) after the processing in the United States is completed.
Whether the component aluminum parts are substantially transformed by the combining processes in the United States.
CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21
In rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations.
In determining whether the combining of parts constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue for CBP is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
In determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred in the processing of metals, CBP has generally held that cutting or bending materials to defined shapes or patterns suitable for use in making finished articles, as opposed to mere cutting to length or width which does not render the article suitable for a particular use, constitutes a substantial transformation. For example, in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HRL”) 055684, dated August 14, 1979, CBP held that components of a water cooler gas absorption refrigeration unit which were formed by cutting to length, cleaning and bending imported steel tubes into the component shapes and configurations, or by cutting to length, flattening, and drilling holes into imported tubing, substantially transformed constituent materials for GSP purposes, while those imported tubes which were simply cut to length and assembled into the final articles were not.
In HRL 555265, dated July 3, 1989, CBP held rolls of imported aluminum strip were substantially transformed when the aluminum strip was crowned, that is, it was passed between convexed and concaved egg shape rollers to permanently bow the strip. Then the strip was cut to lengths and punched with holes. CBP stated that the cutting and crowning operations permanently altered the physical characteristics of the strip thereby limiting its potential uses. Prior to cutting and crowning, the strip was raw material and possessed nothing in its character indicative of its ultimate use. After the cutting and crowning operations, the strip could be used in the production of a limited range of articles, such as venetian blind slats or lattice fences.
The above situations are in contrast to those where the imported components constitute the essence of the end product. For example, in HRL 562653, dated May 14, 2003, CBP considered whether brake kits that were machined and assembled in the United States were substantially transformed. Unplated, drilled and slotted brake rotors and calipers from Italy were plated with a protective zinc coating and some of the calipers were painted/labeled. After painting, the calipers were machined to specification, in accordance with the mounting profile determined by engineers. The two imported plated rotors were each mounted to a U.S.-origin bell by means of ten small bushing assemblies, each of which was comprised of a bushing, spacer, spring washer and bolt. The bushing and the spring were imported from Italy, while the remaining articles were of U.S.-origin. CBP found that, at importation, both the rotors and the calipers were not rough, generic forms with a multitude of uses, but were essentially complete articles which already bore the name of the finished product; therefore, the use of the articles was determined at the time of importation. While the calipers underwent some machining operations in the United States, the overall shape and form of the finished articles was essentially the same as the imported articles. Likewise, although all of the rotors were plated in the United States, and some underwent additional drilling and/or slotting in the United States, the overall dimensions and diameter remained the same. The imported rotors also did not lose their identity and did not become an integral part of a new article when assembled to the U.S. bell. Additionally, the use of the calipers and rotors was predetermined at importation. Thus, CBP found that the imported rotors and calipers did not undergo a change in name, character or use as a result of processing in the United States and remained products of Italy.
Here, the U.S processing of the panels is minimal and does not alter the character of the casing and core. The pre-importation processing is significantly more complicated than the post-importation processing, which essentially consists of some cutting and assembly of parts. The physical characteristics of the casing and the core are already determined by the processing in Italy. Most of the cutting and bending of the casing and the core occurs prior to importation. In Italy, the aluminum sheets are produced; the core is created by linking the skins with the aluminum honeycomb; the aluminum for the casing is cut to size; the casing is painted; three of the four bends in the casing are completed; the core is primed and painted; and the curved core panels are cut. In contrast, in the United States the last edge of the casing is bent, the straight core panels are cut, the core and the casing are attached, and the mounting blades are cut into shape and attached; thus, the form of the components remains essentially the same after U.S. processing. Since the form, materials, and structure remain the same, we find there is no change in character of the core and casing.
The processing here is similar to the brake kits in HRL 562653. The major parts are imported in essentially the same shape that they will be in when assembled into the final product. Although there is some cutting, drilling, and slotting, the casing and the core do not lose their identity or become an integral part of a new article when assembled in the United States. Like the brake kits, at importation the casing and core are not rough, generic forms with a multitude of uses—they are imported only to be assembled to be sold as wall panels. Therefore, the casing and core are not new and different articles of commerce from the assembled panels.
Here, because the core and the casing are not substantially transformed in the United States, the country of origin of the completed panels is Italy.
Based on the facts of this case, aluminum honeycomb panels are not substantially
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determinations.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued two final determinations concerning the country of origin of tablet computers and smart phones known as the Hub and Mobile Platforms, and CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub. CBP has concluded in the final determinations that for purposes of U.S. Government procurement the installation of proprietary software on tablet computers or smart phones does not substantially transform the imported tablet computers or smart phones.
The final determinations were issued on February 21, 2018. Copies of the final determinations are attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of these final determinations within April 2, 2018.
Joy Marie Virga, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202-325-1511).
Notice is hereby given that on February 21, 2018, CBP issued two final determinations concerning the country of origin of tablet computers, smart phones, and systems, which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. These final determinations, HQ H284834 and HQ H284617, were issued at the request of 1Vision, LLC and Care Innovations, LLC, respectively, under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determinations, CBP was asked to consider whether disabling the general applications of a tablet computer or smart phone and loading specialized software onto the device, enabling a patient to provide medical information to the VA, constituted a substantial transformation. In one final determination, CBP was further asked if the integration of the altered tablets and smartphones into a larger telehealth system constituted a substantial transformation. In the final determinations, CBP concluded that these activities do not constitute a substantial transformation and the origin of the tablet computers, smart phones, and systems remains the original country of manufacturing.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the
This is in response to your letter of March 20, 2017, on behalf of 1Vision, LLC (“1Vision”), requesting a final determination concerning the country origin of a product that you refer to as the AMC Home Tele-health System (“Tele-health System” or “the System”), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.21,
As a domestic producer, 1Vision is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
The products at issue are the Tele-health System in its entirety and the components, the CareConsole Hub and the Mobile Hub. The CareConsole Hub and the Mobile Hub, respectively, begin as a tablet computer and a smart phone. The CareConsole Hub is produced in the Republic of Korea and the Mobile Hub is produced in China. Both products are intended for purchase by the Veterans Health Administration for use by patients at home. The CareConsole Hub and the Mobile Hub are designed to collect health data that is measured by other peripheral devices, such as blood pressure cuffs, blood glucose monitors, etc. These other peripheral devices are not imported with the tablet and could be used “as is” within the 1Vision ecosystem, without any changes.
In the United States, the tablet and smart phone go through a number of software uninstallations and installations. The generic Android functions originally included on the devices, such as alarms, calculators and text messaging, are removed. In order to enable the devices to function within the Tele-health System, other functions, such as Bluetooth capability, are modified and additional software is added. In addition, 1Vision also further processes the devices to include additional security mechanisms and to enable them to function in Plain Old Telephone Systems (“POTS”), an analog telephone service that continues to be the basic form of home and small business service connection to telephone networks.
Finally, the AMC CareConsole Mobile Application is installed on both devices. According to the information provided, this software was developed entirely in the United States. The software enables the patient to provide vital sign data by connecting to the peripheral devices via Bluetooth. The patient's information is then forwarded to VA clinicians over the VA intranet. This application is installed on the tablet to meet the VA's requirements for medical devices, including patient confidentiality and interoperability with VA systems and protocols. After the software installation is completed, the tablets cannot run any other program and cannot be reprogrammed to perform any other function.
The CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub are then integrated into the Tele-health System, which also includes servers, data storage, networking, additional software, and health monitoring devices such as blood pressure cuffs and glucose monitors. The integration process consists of the CareConsole Hub or Mobile Hub contacting the Tele-health System, hosted in the VA data centers, which then sends an activation code and
All the components, other than the CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub, come from the United States, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Ireland, or the Republic of Korea. These components are customized as necessary to function in conjunction with each other. The CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub collect information from the patients in their homes and transmit that data to the Tele-health System. The information is then presented to the VA Care Coordinators through the web application. The Tele-health System's various components are installed at multiple locations, including in the patients' homes, VA data centers and VA offices.
Like the Hub and Mobile Hub, the servers also cannot be used out of the box and must be customized. The servers are acquired without an operating system or software and are inoperable until software is installed. The servers are first installed at the VA Facility. The installation process takes five business days as it involves various assembling, configuring and testing processes. The final step is to load the AMC CareConsole software onto the servers.
CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
In rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that the Federal Acquisition Regulations restrict the U.S. Government's purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country end products for acquisitions subject to the Trade Agreements Act. See 48 C.F.R. § 25.403(c)(1). The Federal Acquisition Regulations define “U.S.-made end product” as “an article that is mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States or that is substantially transformed in the United States into a new and different article of commerce with name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed.” See 48 C.F.R § 25.003.
In
“The term `character' is defined as `one of the essentials of structure, form, materials, or function that together make up and usually distinguish the individual.' ”
HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016, reviewed the country of origin of hardware components of certain transceivers in two scenarios that are instructive to the case at issue here. The hardware components of the transceivers were wholly manufactured in a foreign country and imported into the United States. In the first scenario, the transceivers were “blanks” and completely non-functional and specialized proprietary software was developed and downloaded in the United States, making the transceivers functional and compatible with the OEM technology. In the second scenario, the transceivers were preprogrammed with a generic program that was replaced with specialized proprietary software. It was argued that in both scenarios, the imported hardware was substantially transformed by the development, configuration, and downloading operations of the U.S. origin software. In the first scenario, we found that the non-functional transceivers were substantially transformed as a result of downloading performed in the United States, with proprietary software developed in the United States. However, in the second scenario, it was determined that since the transceivers had generic network functionality, programming them merely to customize their network compatibility would not actually change the identity of the imported transceivers.
In this case, you contend that the deletion of software and the installation of new software performed in the United States transform the generic tablet computers and smartphones into medical devices. You emphasize that the U.S. operations disable the Android applications and install health monitoring software, which, you argue, creates an entirely new purpose for the devices. You further stress the complexity and number of steps taken to transform the tablets and smartphones into devices that may be used within the Tele-health System. Therefore, you contend that this operation substantially transforms the tablets and smartphones into new medical devices with distinct names, characters and uses.
In essence, what is being done by the uninstallation and installation of software in the United States, is to limit the original capacity of the imported tablets and smartphones for the purpose of facilitating the reception, collection and transmission of a patient's medical data to VA clinicians for their review. The out-of-box tablets and smartphones have the ability to perform these general functions, but in order to meet the requirements outlined in the VA Request for Procurement, the CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub are modified as discussed. In other words, when the tablets and smartphones are created, they have the ability to receive, collect, and transmit data. The installed software merely enables these devices to receive and collect an individual patient's medical data from the peripheral devices and transmit this medical data to the clinicians at the VA.
It is clear that loading the specialized software onto a tablet computer or smartphone that remains fully functional as such would be insufficient to constitute a new and different article of commerce, since all of the functionality of the original device would be retained. In this case, however, in addition to adding the software, we are being asked to consider the effect of disabling the general applications that have been programmed onto the tablet and smartphone. In our judgment, this added factor does not
Furthermore, we note that the converted tablets and smartphones loaded with the AMC CareConsole Application Software do not actually measure any health related functions, such as blood pressure, or oxygen saturation levels, nor do they provide any medical treatment to patients. Instead, the devices function to receive medical data that is obtained from other peripheral devices, such as a blood pressure cuff or an oxygen sensor, and to transmit that medical data to a clinician for review. Therefore, it appears that after the proprietary software is downloaded onto the tablets and smartphones, they function basically as a type of communications device.
In reviewing the processing performed in the United States on the imported tablets and smartphones under consideration, we note that it is analogous to the situation of the transceivers described by the second scenario of HQ H258960. The imported devices are preprogrammed with a generic program, which is the standard Android operating system, prior to their importation. When they are first imported, the tablets and smartphones can perform all of their standard functions of an android tablet or smartphone, and can in their imported condition be used for their intended purpose, but are customized for use within the VA Healthcare network. Accordingly, like the transceivers described in the second scenario of HQ H258960, we find that the name, character, and use of the imported devices remain the same. Therefore, we further find that the imported devices are not substantially transformed in the United States by the downloading of the proprietary software, which allows them to function with the VA Healthcare network. After the AMC CareConsole Application software is downloaded, the country of origin of the imported tablets and smartphones remains the country where they were originally manufactured, which in this case is the Republic of Korea and China, respectively.
In this situation, you also present an additional argument that the “end product” is an entire system that includes all hardware and software components, because it is defined as such in the VA contract. The implication of this claim is that CBP should consider the Tele-health System as a whole in its substantial transformation analysis. The VA's determination on what is the “end product” is based upon different criteria from what CBP must consider in determining the country of origin of a product using the substantial transformation test. We note that the components at issue do not lose their individual identities and, therefore, are not substantially transformed into a new and different article.
In HQ H125975, dated January 19, 2011, which 1Vision cites in support of its argument, the LSI Engenio 7900 Data Storage System (“7900 System”) was under consideration for government procurement purposes. The 7900 System was assembled in Mexico from components originating in various other nations. These parts included the Engenio Operating System, a controller assembly, a mounting assembly, a set of hard drives, a slot drive module assembly, and a cabinet assembly. Further, the controller assembly was reprogrammed with the EOS software to impart the functional intelligence to the 7900 System to allow for storage management, access control and performance monitoring. CBP found that as a result of the assembly and programming operations that took place in Mexico, the imported components of various origins lost their individual identities and were substantially transformed into a new and different article, that is, the 7900 System.
Although the CareConsole Hub, Mobile Hub and servers are customized to the VA contract specifications, the programming of each component to function in coordination with each other for a common purpose does not lead to a substantial transformation finding. As discussed above, the tablets and phones are not substantially transformed by the uninstallation and installation of software. Similarly, we cannot find a substantial transformation of the servers because software is installed. Moreover, the installation of the software onto the servers would not affect the other components of Tele-health System as they remain separate articles of commerce. Unlike the situation in H125975, all the devices and peripheral equipment remain identifiable as separate components. The peripheral medical devices, such as the blood pressure cuffs, blood glucose monitors etc., remain, as stated, “as is” and without any customization; the CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub, as explained above, remain and continue to function as communication devices; the servers remain and continue to function as servers, etc. The fact that these devices are programmed to function in conjunction with each other for the purpose of receiving, collecting and transmitting medical data does not mean that a change of use or character occurs. Since the components have not lost their separate identities during assembly of the Tele-health System and have not become an integral part of a new and distinct item, which is visibly different from any of the individual components, we find there is no substantial transformation.
Based on the facts of this case, the imported tablets and smartphones used with the CareConsole Hub and Mobile Hub platform are not substantially transformed by the installation of the AMC CareConsole Application. Therefore, the country of origin of the tablets and smartphones will remain the country where they were originally manufactured. Additionally, all components of the Tele-health System are not substantially transformed through the creation and installation of that system in the United States so as to make them a product of the United States.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
This is in response to your letter of March 21, 2017, on behalf of Care Innovations requesting a final determination concerning the country of origin of a product that you refer to as “the Hub Platform and the Mobile Platform,” pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.21,
As a domestic importer of merchandise, Care Innovations is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
The products at issue are referred to as the Hub Platform and the Mobile Platform. The Hub Platform is a home based platform that operates via Plain Old Telephone Systems (“POTS”), while the Mobile Platform is a handheld platform with wireless connectivity. Both platforms begin as iPad tablet computers that are produced by Apple in China, which are later encased with protective cases that are also manufactured in China. The tablet is designed for use by patients at home to collect health data that is measured by other peripheral devices such as blood pressure monitors, spirometer etc. These other devices are not imported with the tablet.
After the tablets are imported into the United States, Care Innovations performs
Care Innovations also adds physical asset tags to each tablet and registers them on Care Innovation's Mobile Device Management server; registers component details in the customer database; and verifies and documents the testing of the image and registered software. Care Innovations then packages the Hub Platform and Mobile Platform with the necessary licenses, privacy notices, and quick start guides. Finally, Care Innovations activates the platforms' features and prepares the platforms to be assigned to a specific end user.
Whether the imported tablets are substantially transformed by the installation of Care Innovations' software, so as to make them a product of the United States.
CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
In rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations.
In
“The term `character' is defined as `one of the essentials of structure, form, materials, or function that together make up and usually distinguish the individual.' ”
HQ H258960, dated May 19, 2016, reviewed the country of origin of hardware components of certain transceivers in two scenarios that are instructive to the case at issue here. The hardware components of the transceivers were wholly manufactured in a foreign country and imported into the United States. In the first scenario, the transceivers were “blanks” and completely non-functional and specialized proprietary software was developed and downloaded in the United States, making the transceivers functional and compatible with the OEM technology. In the second scenario, the transceivers were preprogrammed with a generic program that was replaced with specialized proprietary software. It was argued that in both scenarios, the imported hardware was substantially transformed by the development, configuration, and downloading operations of the U.S. origin software. In the first scenario, we found that the non-functional transceivers were substantially transformed as a result of downloading performed in the United States, with proprietary software developed in the United States. However, in the second scenario, it was determined that since the transceivers had generic network functionality, programming them merely to customize their network compatibility would not actually change the identity of the imported transceivers.
In this case, you assert that the software downloading operations performed in the United States transform the generic tablet computers into medical devices. You further argue that the tablets undergo a complex production process performed by skilled production associates at Care Innovations' Roseville, California facility. You emphasize that the U.S. operations disable the generic Apple iPad applications and install health monitoring software that cannot be undone by third parties during the normal course of operations. Therefore, you contend that this operation substantially transforms the Apple iPad tablet into a new medical device with a distinct name, character and use.
In essence, what is being done by the installation of the software in the United States, is to limit the original capacity of the imported tablets for the purpose of facilitating the reception, collection and transmission of a patient's medical data to VA clinicians for their review. The original tablet has the ability to perform these functions, but it was determined that in order to meet FDA regulations, it is best to disable the various functions of the tablet and to replace them with one function via the specialized software. In other words, when the tablets are created, they have the ability to receive, collect, and transmit data. The installed software just enables the tablets to receive and collect an individual patient's medical data from the peripheral devices and transmit this medical data to the clinicians at the VA.
It is clear that loading specialized software onto the tablet computer that remains fully functional as a computer would be insufficient to constitute a new and different article of commerce, since all of the functionality of the original computer would be retained. In this case, however, in addition to adding the software, we are being asked to consider the effect of disabling the general applications that have been programmed onto the tablet. In our judgment, this added factor does not cause or require a different result. The functions of the original tablet produced in China that are necessary to receive and transmit data are in essence still present on the modified tablet, as aided by the software. While the tablet is no longer a
Furthermore, we note that the converted tablets loaded with the Health Harmony software do not actually measure any health related functions, such as blood pressure, or oxygen saturation levels, nor do they provide any medical treatment to patients. Instead, the converted tablets function to receive medical data that is obtained from other peripheral devices, such as a blood pressure monitor or pulse oximeter, and to transmit that medical data to a clinician for review. Therefore, it appears that after the proprietary software is downloaded onto the tablets, the tablets continue to basically function as a type of communications device.
It is also claimed that the FDA considers the Hub Platform and the Mobile Platform to be medical devices and that the IRS will tax the Health Harmony system, including the tablet, as a medical device. Thus, you contend that CBP should also consider the tablets loaded with the Health Harmony software to be medical devices rather than tablets. We note, however, that the IRS and FDA's determinations as to whether any items are considered medical devices are based upon different criteria from what CBP must apply in determining the country of origin of a product using the substantial transformation test
In reviewing the processing performed in the United States on the imported tablets under consideration, we note that it is analogous to the situation of the transceivers described by the second scenario of HQ H258960. The imported tablets are preprogrammed with a generic program, which is the standard Apple iPad operating system, prior to their importation. When they are first imported, the tablets can perform all of the standard functions of an Apple iPad tablet, and can in their imported condition be used in conjunction with the proprietary software. Accordingly, like the transceivers described in the second scenario of HQ H258960, we find that the name, character, and use of the imported tablet computers remain the same. Therefore, we further find that the imported tablets are not substantially transformed in the United States by the downloading of the proprietary software, which allows them to function within the VA Healthcare network. After the Health Harmony software is downloaded, the country of origin of the imported tablets remains the country where they were originally manufactured, which in this case is China.
Finally, you argue that since CBP concluded that a predecessor of the Health Harmony System, Stehekin, was considered part of a patient monitoring system rather than a standard computer in NY Ruling N004877 dated January 26, 2007, it would be inconsistent to conclude that Health Harmony, as Stehekin's descendant, is, for purposes of government procurement, merely a “standard computer” manufactured outside the United States. You claim that Stehekin is analogous to the tablet computer that Care Innovations uses today because it included a purpose-built computer, produced in China, that was used to deliver remote patient monitoring software and capability. However, the issue decided in N004877 was a question of tariff classification, not substantial transformation, and is therefore, not applicable.
Based on the facts of this case, the imported tablets used with the Mobile Platform and the Hub platform are not substantially transformed by the installation of the proprietary Health Harmony software. Therefore, the country of origin of the tablets will remain the country where they were originally manufactured.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announces a public meeting of the International Wildlife Conservation Council (Council).
Friday, March 16, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). For deadlines and directions on registering to attend, submitting written material, and giving an oral presentation, please see Public Input under
The meeting will be held in the South Penthouse at the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
Joshua Winchell, Council Designated Federal Officer, by U.S. mail at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; by telephone at (703) 358-2639; or by email at
The Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), regarding the benefits that result from United States citizens traveling to foreign nations to engage in hunting.
Formed in December 2017, the Council is an advisory body whose duties include, but are not limited to:
(a) Developing a plan for public engagement and education on the benefits of international hunting.
(b) Reviewing and making recommendations for changes, when needed, on all Federal programs, and/or regulations, to ensure support of hunting as:
1. An enhancement to foreign wildlife conservation and survival; and
2. An effective tool to combat illegal trafficking and poaching.
(c) Recommending strategies to benefit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's permit office in receiving timely country data and information so as to remove barriers that impact consulting with range states.
(d) Recommending removal of barriers to the importation into the United States of legally hunted wildlife.
(e) Ongoing review of import suspension/bans and providing recommendations that seek to resume the legal trade of those items, where appropriate.
(f) Reviewing seizure and forfeiture actions/practices, and providing recommendations for regulations that will lead to a reduction of unwarranted actions.
(g) Reviewing the Endangered Species Act's foreign listed species and interaction with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, with the goal of eliminating regulatory duplications.
(h) Recommending methods for streamlining/expediting processing of import permits.
The Council will convene to discuss issues including:
1. International wildlife conservation programs conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
2. U.S. Government efforts to combat wildlife trafficking; and
3. Other Council business.
The final agenda will be posted on the internet at
To attend this meeting, register by close of business on the dates listed in Public Input. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to the Council Designated Federal Officer (see
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date in Public Input, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Designated Federal Officer in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and/or one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and the time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. Interested parties must contact the Council Designated Federal Officer, in writing (preferably via email; see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please 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.
Summary minutes of the conference will be maintained by the Council Designated Federal Officer (see
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Strategic Employee and Organization Development, Federal Consulting Group, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Federal Consulting Group are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 1, 2018.
Send your written comments by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or email (
To request additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions, please write to the Federal Consulting Group, Attention: Lucy Adams, 1849 C St. NW, MS4344, Washington, DC 20240-0001, or call (202) 513-7679. You may also review the information collection request online at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Federal Consulting Group; (2) will this
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
The proposed renewal of this information collection activity provides a means to consistently assess, benchmark, and improve customer satisfaction with Federal government agency programs and/or services within the Executive Branch. The Federal Consulting Group of the Department of the Interior serves as the executive agent for this methodology and has partnered with the Claes Fornell International Group (CFI Group) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) to offer the ACSI to Federal government agencies.
The CFI Group, a leader in customer satisfaction and customer experience management, offers a comprehensive model that quantifies the effects of quality improvements on citizen satisfaction. The CFI Group has developed the methodology and licenses it to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, an independent organization which produces the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). This national indicator is developed for different economic sectors each quarter, which are then published in
The ACSI is the only cross-agency methodology for obtaining comparable measures of customer satisfaction with Federal government programs and/or services. Along with other economic objectives—such as employment and growth—the quality of outputs (goods and services) is a part of measuring living standards. The ACSI's ultimate purpose is to help improve the quality of goods and services available to American citizens.
ACSI surveys conducted by the Federal Consulting Group are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The agency information collection is an integral part of conducting an ACSI survey. The contractor will not be authorized to release any agency information upon completion of the survey without first obtaining permission from the Federal Consulting Group and the participating agency. In no case shall any new system of records containing privacy information be developed by the Federal Consulting Group, participating agencies, or the contractor collecting the data. In addition, participating Federal agencies may only provide information used to randomly select respondents from among established systems of records provided for such routine uses.
Further, the information will enable Federal agencies to determine customer satisfaction metrics with discrimination capability across variables. Thus, this information collection will assist Federal agencies in making the best use of resources in a targeted manner to improve service to the public.
This survey asks no questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it is operating under a currently valid OMB control number. The Office of Management and Budget control number for this collection is 1090-0007. The control number will be displayed on the surveys used. Response to the surveys is voluntary.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of the Secretary, Office of Strategic Employee and Organization Development, Federal Consulting Group, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Federal Consulting Group are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 1, 2018.
Send your written comments by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or email (
To request additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions, please write to the Federal Consulting Group, Attention: Lucy Adams, 1849 C St. NW, MS4344, Washington, DC 20240-0001 or call (202) 513-7679. You may also review the information collection request online at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Federal Consulting Group; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Federal Consulting Group enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Federal Consulting Group minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
This information collection activity provides a means to consistently assess, benchmark, and improve customer satisfaction with Federal government agency websites within the Executive Branch. The Federal Consulting Group of the Department of the Interior serves as the executive agent for this methodology and has partnered with ForeSee to offer this assessment to federal agencies.
ForeSee is a leader in customer satisfaction and customer experience management on the web and related media. Its methodology (Customer Experience Analytics or CXA) is a derivative of one of the most respected, credible, and well known measures of customer satisfaction in the country, the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). The ForeSee CXA methodology combines survey data and a patented econometric model to precisely measure the customer satisfaction of website users, identify specific areas for improvement, and determine the impact of those improvements on customer satisfaction and future customer behaviors.
The ForeSee CXA is the only cross-agency methodology for obtaining comparable measures of customer satisfaction with Federal Government websites. The ultimate purpose of ForeSee CXA is to help improve the quality of goods and services available to American citizens, including those from the Federal government.
The E-Government website Customer Satisfaction Surveys will be completed subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a). The agency information collection will be used solely for the purpose of the survey. The contractor will not be authorized to release any agency information upon completion of the survey without first obtaining permission from the Federal Consulting Group and the participating agency. In no case shall any new system of records containing privacy information be developed by the Federal Consulting Group, participating agencies, or the contractor collecting the data. In addition, participating Federal agencies may only provide information used to randomly selected respondents from among established systems of records provided for such routine uses.
Further, the information will enable Federal agencies to determine customer satisfaction metrics with discrimination capability across variables. Thus, this information collection will assist Federal agencies in making the best use of resources in a targeted manner to improve service to the public.
This survey asks no questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it is operating under a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. The Office of Management and Budget control number for this collection is 1090-0008. The control number will be displayed on the surveys used. For expeditious administration of the surveys, the expiration date will not be displayed on the individual instruments. Response to the surveys is voluntary.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 1, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Jean Sonneman; by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jennifer Spencer by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by April 2, 2018.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, BLM, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the State Director for Oregon/Washington, BLM. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will not be considered. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the State Director for Oregon/Washington during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director for Oregon/Washington within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 31, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, on behalf of Carter Fuel Systems, LLC of Logansport, Indiana. Supplements to the complaint were filed on February 15, 16, and 22, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain fuel pump assemblies having vapor separators and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,257,208 (“the '208 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain fuel pump assemblies having vapor separators and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-5 and 7-18 of the '208 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Carter Fuel Systems, LLC, 101 East Industrial Boulevard, Logansport, Indiana 46947.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Wenzhou Jushang (JS) Performance Parts Co. Ltd., No. 989 LongShan Road, Beiou Industry Zone, Wenzhou, Zheijhang 325200, China.
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on December 1, 2016 (81 FR 86725) and determined on March 6, 2017 that it would conduct full reviews (82 FR 14030, March 16, 2017). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on February 26, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4764 (February 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
March 9, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-597 and 731-TA-1407 (Preliminary) (Cast Iron Soil Pipe from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on March 12, 2018; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on March 19, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of opportunity to provide written comments in connection with the Commission's ninth annual review.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) has announced its schedule, including deadlines for filing written submissions, in connection with preparing a report on its ninth annual review in investigation No. 332-503,
April 30, 2018: Deadline for filing written submissions.
August 3, 2018: Transmittal of ninth report to House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions, including statements, and briefs, should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public file for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader Mary Roop (202-708-2277 or
Section 404(d) directs the Commission to conduct an annual review of the program to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make recommendations for improvements. The Commission is required to submit its reports containing the results of its reviews to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. Copies of the Commission's prior reports are available on the Commission's website at
The Commission instituted this investigation pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to facilitate docketing of submissions and also to facilitate public access to Commission records through the Commission's EDIS electronic records system. The Commission published notice of
The Commission will not include any confidential business information in the report that it sends to the Committees or makes available to the public. However, all information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
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 in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before May 1, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on January 22, 2018, Stepan Company, 100 W Hunter Ave., Maywood, NJ 07607 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Agreement and Undertaking,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 2, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Agreement and Undertaking information collection. A coal mine operator who has been approved to be a self-insurer completes Form OWCP-1 to provide the Secretary of Labor with authorization to sell securities or to bring suit under indemnity bonds deposited by the self-insured employers in the event there is a default in the payment of benefits. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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; and
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 9,382,000 entitled, “Improved Aircraft Design”, DRC-012-027, to Chase Boats, LLC, having its principal place of business in Marshall, CA. The fields of use may be limited to Recreational Ultralight Airplanes.
The prospective partially exclusive patent license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument no later than March 19, 2018 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than March 19, 2018 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office of Chief Counsel, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 180-800C Pasadena, CA 91109. Phone (818) 854-7770. Facsimile (818) 393-2607.
Mark Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office of Chief Counsel, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 180-800C Pasadena, CA 91109. Phone (818) 854-7770. Facsimile (818) 393-2607.
This notice of intent to grant a partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209e and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of proposed extension request.
NARA proposes to request an extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of a currently approved information collection used by the public and other Federal agencies to use its official seal(s) and/or logo(s). We invite you to comment on this proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
We must receive written comments on or before May 1, 2018.
Send comments to Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (MP), Room 4100; National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, fax them to 301-837-0319, or email them to
Contact Tamee Fechhelm by telephone at 301-837-1694 or fax at 301-837-0319 with requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections and its accuracy; (c) ways NARA could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it collects; (d) ways NARA could minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through information technology; and (e) whether these collections affects small businesses. We will summarize any comments you submit and include the summary in our request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA solicits comments concerning the following information collection:
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received within thirty (30) calendar days of publication of this Notice.
Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20527. See
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202) 336-8558.
OPIC received comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received within thirty (30) calendar days of publication of this Notice.
Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20527. See
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202) 336-8558.
OPIC received comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.56, Compression Forums.
(a)
(1) Prior to 4:30 p.m. Chicago time on the
(2) Prior to the open of Regular Trading Hours on the
(3)-(6) (No change).
(b)-(c) (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 amend rule 6.56 (Compression Forums) to modify the frequency with which Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) may submit compression-list positions to the Exchange.
Currently, TPHs may submit lists of existing SPX positions to the Exchange that they wish to close during a compression forum (“compression-list positions”) by submitting such positions to the Exchange prior to 4:30 p.m. Chicago time on the fourth to last business day of each calendar month.
As previously noted, TPH compression-list positions are due by 4:30 p.m. Chicago time on the fourth to last business day of each calendar month. Thus, compression-list positions submitted by TPHs and the subsequent files and information generated from the compression-list positions cannot account for positions that have been opened or closed on the last three business days of the month (
The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to modify the process by which the Exchange utilizes compression-list positions to generate files. The Exchange will simply perform those processes three times instead of once. For example, from the compression-list positions submitted prior to 4:30 p.m. Chicago time on the fourth to last business day, the Exchange will generate and distribute the files and information described in Rule 6.56(a)(2)-(5), and such files and information are likely to be used by TPHs in the compression forum that occurs on the third to last business day. From the compression-list positions submitted prior to 4:30 p.m. Chicago time on the third to last business day, the Exchange will generate and distribute the files and information described in Rule 6.56(a)(2)-(5), and such files and information are likely to be used by TPHs in the compression forum that occurs on the second to last business day. Finally, from the compression-list positions submitted prior to 4:30 p.m. Chicago time on the second to last business day, the Exchange will generate and distribute the files and information described in Rule 6.56(a)(2)-(5), and such files and information is likely to be used by TPHs in the compression forum that occurs on the last business day. The Exchange notes that if, for example, a TPH submits compression-list positions on the fourth to last business day but not on the second or third to last business day, the compression-list positions submitted on the fourth to last business day will be used in the first file generation process, not each time the Exchange generates files. In short, each time the Exchange runs its file generation process the Exchange processes only the compression-list positions specific to each deadline (
The proposed rule change will allow TPHs to submit to the Exchange more accurate information regarding their open positions in order to facilitate the generation of a more accurate assessment of potential offsetting interest, specifically, on the second and third to last business days of the calendar month. Giving TPHs a more accurate assessment of potential offsetting interest allows TPHs to more efficiently and effectively execute closing transactions in compression forums on the last business day and the second to last business day of the calendar month. The ability to more efficiently and effectively execute closing transactions in compression forums helps to alleviate the adverse impact of bank capital requirements.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations
In particular, the proposed rule change will allow TPHs to submit to the Exchange more accurate information regarding their open positions in order to facilitate the generation of a more accurate assessment of potential offsetting interest, specifically, on the second and third to last business days of the calendar month. Giving TPHs a more accurate assessment of potential offsetting interest allows TPHs to more efficiently and effectively execute closing transactions in compression forums on the last business day and the second to last business day of the calendar month, which, in general, helps to protect investors and the public interest because closing positions via the compression process serves to alleviate the adverse impact of bank capital requirements.
Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change would encourage the closing of positions, which, once closed, may serve to alleviate the capital requirement constraints on TPHs and improve overall market liquidity by freeing capital currently tied up in certain SPX positions. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change applies only to the trading of SPX options, which are exclusively-listed on Cboe Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are eligible to participant through Cboe Options TPHs. Furthermore, participation in compression forums is completely voluntary and open to all TPHs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on December 28, 2017 the advance notice SR-NSCC-2017-808 pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
The Advance Notice consists of changes to NSCC's Rules & Procedures (“Rules”)
A key tool that NSCC uses to manage its credit exposures to Members is the daily calculation and collection of margin from each Member (“Required Deposit”).
Each Member's Required Deposit consists of several components.
In addition to the Core Parametric Estimation, NSCC proposes to add a second method for determining the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit.
NSCC has observed that portfolios with a concentration level of more than 30 percent in a specific security tend to have backtesting coverage below the 99 percent confidence level.
NSCC also has observed that exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) that track to a broad market index are generally not susceptible to Gap Risk Events.
When applicable, NSCC would calculate the Gap Risk Measure by multiplying the gross market value of the largest (non-index) position in the portfolio by a percent of not less than 10 percent.
In addition to the Core Parametric Estimation and the Gap Risk Measure, NSCC proposes to add a third method for determining the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit.
NSCC proposes the Portfolio Margin Floor to operate as a floor to (
The Portfolio Margin Floor would be the sum of two separate calculations, both of which would measure the market value of the portfolio based on the direction of net positions in the portfolio.
Finally, in order to choose the amount to be charged as the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit, NSCC would compare the amounts calculated by the Portfolio Margin Floor, the Gap Risk Measure (if applicable), and the Core Parametric Estimation. NSCC then would use the highest of those three calculations as the volatility component of the Member's Required Deposit.
NSCC proposes to eliminate the Market Maker Domination Component (“MMD Charge”) from its Clearing Fund formula.
Under the current Rules, NSCC may impose the MMD Charge if the Market Maker (either the Member or the correspondent of the Member) holds a position that is greater than 40 percent of the overall unsettled long position (
NSCC states that since implementation of the MMD Charge, several developments in the U.S. equity markets (
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
Section 805(c) of the Clearing Supervision Act provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk-management standards may address such areas as risk-management and default policies and procedures, among others areas.
The Commission has adopted risk-management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with each of the objectives and principles described in Section 805(b) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes promote robust risk management by adding three new volatility component calculations that would better enable NSCC to mitigate the credit risks presented by Member portfolios in a broader range of scenarios and market conditions than NSCC's current volatility component calculation.
First, as described above, NSCC currently calculates the volatility component of each Member's Required Deposit using a VaR calculation that relies exclusively on an exponentially-weighted volatility estimation. However, the current VaR calculation places more emphasis on recent market observations, which may result in a swift decline in margin that does not adequately capture the risks related to a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels. To address this shortcoming, NSCC proposes to (1) add a VaR calculation that relies on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation (
Second, as described above, when a Member's portfolio holds a concentrated position in a specific security beyond a significant percentage of the entire portfolio's value, the portfolio may be more susceptible to Gap Risk Events. In such a scenario, NSCC's current volatility component calculation may result in inadequate margin coverage. To address this issue, NSCC has proposed the Gap Risk Measure as an alternative volatility component calculation. The Gap Risk Measure is designed to provide better margin coverage in such a scenario as it would apply to all individual equities (including non-index-based and narrow-index-based ETPs, as described above) when a Member maintains a position in its portfolio that exceeds the 30 percent
Third, as described above, when a Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net directional market values in a period of low market price volatility, NSCC's current volatility component calculation may not result in adequate margin, which could hinder NSCC's ability to effectively liquidate or hedge the Member's portfolio in the event of the Member's default. To address this concern, NSCC proposes the Portfolio Margin Floor, which would operate as a floor to (
Finally, to help ensure that the amount of margin that NSCC collects as the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit would help mitigate each of the specific concerns addressed by the Core Parametric Estimation, Gap Risk Measure, and Portfolio Margin Floor, NSCC would assess the largest amount of those three calculations as the volatility component of the Member's Required Deposit.
In addition to the three proposed volatility component calculations, NSCC also proposes to eliminate the MMD Charge. As described above, NSCC has found the MMD Charge to be an inefficient and ineffective component of the Clearing Fund formula that may not accurately capture the credit risk presented by a Member's portfolio. More specifically, the charge does not cover a range of scenarios and market conditions that would be covered by the proposed Gap Risk Measure. Moreover, in contrast to the proposed Gap Risk Measure, the MMD Charge (1) only applies to positions in certain securities, (2) does not address concentration risk presented by positions in securities that are not listed on NASDAQ, (3) does not account for concentration in market capitalization categories, and (4) only applies to Market Makers. Accordingly, NSCC's proposal to eliminate the MMD Charge is designed to remove an obsolete component from the Clearing Fund formula.
Taken together, each of the above described changes would enhance NSCC's current method for calculating each Member's volatility component, enabling NSCC to produce margin levels more commensurate with the risks associated with its Members' portfolios in a broader range of scenarios and market conditions, and, thus, more effectively cover its credit exposure to its Members. Therefore, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk management, consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
The Commission also believes that the proposed changes would promote safety and soundness at NSCC, which, in turn, would help reduce systemic risk and support the stability of the broader financial system. As described above, the proposed changes are designed to better limit NSCC's credit exposure to Members in the event of a Member default. More specifically, the proposed VaR calculation based on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in market conditions that reflect a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels. Meanwhile, the proposed Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to manage its credit exposure to Member portfolios that are more susceptible to Gap Risk Events. Finally, the proposed Portfolio Margin Floor would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios, such as low market price volatility when a Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net directional market values.
By better limiting credit exposure to its Members, NSCC's proposed changes are designed to help ensure that, in the event of a Member default, NSCC's operations would not be disrupted and non-defaulting Members would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control. As such, the Commission finds that the proposed changes would promote safety and soundness, which in turn, would reduce systemic risks and support the stability of the broader financial system, consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Therefore, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act, which requires that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
As described above, the Commission believes the proposed VaR calculation based on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in market conditions that reflect a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels; the proposed Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Member portfolios that are more susceptible to Gap Risk Events; and the proposed Portfolio Margin Floor would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios, such as when a Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net directional market values and market prices exhibit low volatility. Furthermore, NSCC would assess a Member the largest of these three calculations as the Member's volatility component to its Required Deposit.
Each of these proposed changes is designed to help NSCC more effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to its Members. In doing so, the proposed changes would enable NSCC to more accurately assess the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit and, thus, help NSCC maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each Member fully with a high degree of confidence. Therefore, the Commission finds that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance
As described above, the Commission believes the proposed VaR calculation based on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain market conditions with a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels; the proposed Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Member portfolios that are more susceptible to Gap Risk Events; and the proposed Portfolio Margin Floor would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios, such as low market price volatility when a Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net directional market values and market prices exhibit low volatility. Moreover, NSCC would assess a Member the largest of these three calculations as the Member's volatility component to its Required Deposit.
These three proposed volatility component calculations are designed to help improve NSCC's risk-based margin system by enabling NSCC to produce margin levels that are more commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of the relevant products, portfolios, and markets that NSCC serves. Additionally, as described above, the three proposed volatility component calculations are designed to use methods that are more appropriately tailored for measuring credit exposure that account for specific risk factors and portfolio effects. Therefore, the Commission finds that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v) under the Exchange Act.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing revisions to the content outline and selection specifications for the Securities Trader (Series 57) examination as part of the restructuring of the representative-level examination program.
The revised Series 57 content outline is attached.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
The SEC recently approved a proposed rule change to restructure the FINRA representative-level qualification examination program.
The restructured program eliminates duplicative testing of general securities knowledge on the current representative-level qualification examinations by moving such content into the SIE examination.
As part of the restructuring process and in consultation with a committee of industry representatives, FINRA undertook a review of the Securities Trader (Series 57) examination to remove the general securities knowledge currently covered on the examination and to create a tailored examination to test knowledge relevant to the day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions of a Securities Trader. In addition, FINRA is proposing to make changes to the format of the Series 57 content outline.
Beginning on October 1, 2018, new applicants seeking to register as Securities Traders must pass the SIE examination and the revised Securities Trader (Series 57) examination.
The current Series 57 content outline is divided into four major job functions that are performed by a Securities Trader. The following are the four major job functions, denoted Function 1 through 4, with the associated number of questions:
Function 1: Market Overview and Products, 22 questions;
Function 2: Engaging in Professional Conduct and Adhering to Regulatory Requirements, 12 questions;
Function 3: Trading Activities, 79 questions; and
Function 4: Maintaining Books and Records and Trade Reporting, 12 questions.
Each function also includes specific tasks describing activities associated with performing that function. There are three tasks (1.1-1.3) associated with Function 1; two tasks (2.1-2.2) associated with Function 2; three tasks (3.1-3.3) associated with Function 3; and two tasks (4.1-4.2) associated with Function 4. For example, one such task (Task 4.2) relates to creating, retaining, and reporting required records of orders and transactions. Further, the content outline lists the knowledge required to perform each function and associated tasks (
As noted above, FINRA is proposing to move the general securities knowledge currently covered on the Series 57 examination to the SIE examination. For example, FINRA Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others) (the Gifts Rule) will now be tested on the SIE examination, rather than on the Series 57 examination. As a result, the revised Series 57 examination will test knowledge specific to the day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions of a Securities Trader.
Further, FINRA is proposing to make changes to the major job functions that are performed by a Securities Trader. The following are the revised job functions, denoted Function 1 and Function 2, with the associated number of questions:
Function 1: Trading Activities, 41 questions; and
Function 2: Maintaining Books and Records, Trade Reporting and Clearance and Settlement, 9 questions.
FINRA also is proposing to adjust the number of questions assigned to each major job function to ensure that the overall examination better reflects the key tasks performed by a Securities Trader. The questions on the revised Series 57 examination will place emphasis on tasks such as trading activities, trade reporting and related books and records.
Further, FINRA is proposing to make changes to the specific tasks associated with performing each function. There are three tasks (1.1-1.3) associated with Function 1
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 57 selection specifications and question bank.
Finally, FINRA is proposing to make changes to the format of the content outline, including to the preface, sample questions and reference materials.
As a result of the proposed changes, the number of scored questions on the Series 57 examination will be reduced from 125 questions to 50 questions.
The current Series 57 content outline is available on FINRA's website. The revised Series 57 content outline will replace the current content outline on FINRA's website, and it will be made available on the website on the date of this filing.
FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will be October 1, 2018, to coincide with the implementation of the restructured representative-level examination program. FINRA will also announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 57 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The updated examination aligns with the functions and associated tasks currently performed by a Securities Trader and tests knowledge of the most current laws, rules, regulations and skills relevant to those functions and associated tasks. As such, the proposed revisions would make the examination more effective. FINRA also provided a detailed economic impact assessment regarding the introduction of the SIE examination and the restructuring of the representative-level examinations as part of the proposed rule change to restructure the FINRA representative-level qualification examination program.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on December 28, 2017 proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2017-020 pursuant to Section 19b(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The Proposed Rule Change consists of changes to NSCC's Rules & Procedures (“Rules”)
A key tool that NSCC uses to manage its credit exposures to Members is the daily calculation and collection of margin from each Member (“Required Deposit”).
Each Member's Required Deposit consists of several components.
In addition to the Core Parametric Estimation, NSCC proposes to add a second method for determining the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit.
NSCC has observed that portfolios with a concentration level of more than 30 percent in a specific security tend to have backtesting coverage below the 99 percent confidence level.
NSCC also has observed that exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) that track to a broad market index are generally not susceptible to Gap Risk Events.
When applicable, NSCC would calculate the Gap Risk Measure by multiplying the gross market value of the largest (non-index) position in the portfolio by a percent of not less than 10 percent.
In addition to the Core Parametric Estimation and the Gap Risk Measure, NSCC proposes to add a third method for determining the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit.
NSCC proposes the Portfolio Margin Floor to operate as a floor to (
The Portfolio Margin Floor would be the sum of two separate calculations, both of which would measure the market value of the portfolio based on the direction of net positions in the portfolio.
Finally, in order to choose the amount to be charged as the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit, NSCC would compare the amounts calculated by the Portfolio Margin Floor, the Gap Risk Measure (if applicable), and the Core Parametric Estimation. NSCC then would use the highest of those three calculations as the volatility component of the Member's Required Deposit.
NSCC proposes to eliminate the Market Maker Domination Component (“MMD Charge”) from its Clearing Fund formula.
Under the current Rules, NSCC may impose the MMD Charge if the Market Maker (either the Member or the correspondent of the Member) holds a position that is greater than 40 percent of the overall unsettled long position (
NSCC states that since implementation of the MMD Charge,
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
The Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
First, as described above, NSCC currently calculates the volatility component of each Member's Required Deposit using a VaR calculation that relies exclusively on an exponentially-weighted volatility estimation. However, the current VaR calculation places more emphasis on recent market observations, which may result in a swift decline in margin that does not adequately capture the risks related to a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels. To address this shortcoming, NSCC proposes to (1) add a VaR calculation that relies on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation (
Second, as described above, when a Member's portfolio holds a concentrated position in a specific security beyond a significant percentage of the entire portfolio's value, the portfolio may be more susceptible to Gap Risk Events. In such a scenario, NSCC's current volatility component calculation may result in inadequate margin coverage. To address this issue, NSCC has proposed the Gap Risk Measure as an alternative volatility component calculation. The Gap Risk Measure is designed to provide better margin coverage in such a scenario as it would apply to all individual equities (including non-index-based and narrow-index-based ETPs, as described above) when a Member maintains a position in its portfolio that exceeds the 30 percent concentration threshold. Accordingly, the Commission believes adding the Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to more effectively limit its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios in which a Member holds a security that meets the 30 percent concentration threshold relative to the remainder of its portfolio.
Third, as described above, when a Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net directional market values in a period of low market price volatility, NSCC's current volatility component calculation may not result in adequate margin, which could hinder NSCC's ability to effectively liquidate or hedge the Member's portfolio in the event of the Member's default. To address this concern, NSCC proposes the Portfolio Margin Floor, which would operate as a floor to (
Finally, to help ensure that the amount of margin that NSCC collects as the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit would help mitigate each of the specific concerns addressed by the Core Parametric Estimation, Gap Risk Measure, and Portfolio Margin Floor, NSCC would assess the largest amount of those three calculations as the volatility component of the Member's Required Deposit.
In addition to the three proposed volatility component calculations, NSCC also proposes to eliminate the MMD Charge. As described above, NSCC has found the MMD Charge to be an inefficient and ineffective component of the Clearing Fund formula that may not accurately capture the credit risk presented by a Member's portfolio. More specifically, the charge does not cover a range of scenarios and market conditions that would be covered by the proposed Gap Risk Measure. Moreover, in contrast to the proposed Gap Risk Measure, the MMD Charge (1) only applies to positions in certain securities, (2) does not address concentration risk presented by positions in securities that are not listed on NASDAQ, (3) does not account for concentration in market capitalization categories, and (4) only applies to Market Makers. Accordingly, NSCC's proposal to eliminate the MMD Charge is designed to remove an obsolete component from the Clearing Fund formula.
Taken together, each of the above described changes would enhance NSCC's current method for calculating each Member's volatility component, enabling NSCC to produce margin levels more commensurate with the risks associated with its Members' portfolios in a broader range of scenarios and market conditions, and, thus, more
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act, which requires that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
As described above, the Commission believes the proposed VaR calculation based on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in market conditions that reflect a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels; the proposed Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Member portfolios that are more susceptible to Gap Risk Events; and the proposed Portfolio Margin Floor would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios, such as when a Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net directional market values and market prices exhibit low volatility. Furthermore, NSCC would assess a Member the largest of these three calculations as the Member's volatility component to its Required Deposit.
Each of these proposed changes is designed to help NSCC more effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to its Members. In doing so, the proposed changes would enable NSCC to more accurately assess the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit and, thus, help NSCC maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each Member fully with a high degree of confidence. Therefore, the Commission finds that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Exchange Act, which requires that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.
As described above, the Commission believes the proposed VaR calculation based on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain market conditions with a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels; the proposed Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Member portfolios that are more susceptible to Gap Risk Events; and the proposed Portfolio Margin Floor would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios, such as low market price volatility when a Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net directional market values and market prices exhibit low volatility. Moreover, NSCC would assess a Member the largest of these three calculations as the Member's volatility component to its Required Deposit.
These three proposed volatility component calculations are designed to help improve NSCC's risk-based margin system by enabling NSCC to produce margin levels that are more commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of the relevant products, portfolios, and markets that NSCC serves. Additionally, as described above, the three proposed volatility component calculations are designed to use methods that are more appropriately tailored for measuring credit exposure that account for specific risk factors and portfolio effects. Therefore, the Commission finds that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v) under the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to update Rule 4758 to reflect the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed change is to update Rule 4758 to reflect the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American. Rule 4758 concerns order routing and paragraph (1)(A) thereunder provides various routing options market participants may choose for their orders. The DOT,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change will make a technical change to Rule 4758 to reflect the accurate name of a national securities exchange. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will place any burden on competition whatsoever.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to introduce a new data feed on its equity options platform (“BZX Options”) to be known as BZX Options Top.
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 introduce a new data feed on BZX Options to be known as BZX Options Top. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 21.15(b) to add a description of the BZX Options Top feed and to change the name of the Multicast PITCH feed to BZX Options Depth.
A description of each market data product offered by the Exchange is described in Exchange Rule 21.15(b). The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.15(b) to introduce and add a description of the BZX Options Top feed to Exchange under subparagraph (2).
The Exchange also propose to rename Multicast Pitch as BZX Options Depth and amend its rules and fee schedule accordingly. BZX Options Depth is a data feed that offers depth of book quotations and execution information based on options orders entered into the System.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by the Exchange offering a service similar to that offered by Nasdaq.
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, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.
Little Harbor Advisors, LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, ETF Series Solutions (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series.
The application was filed on November 22, 2017 and amended on February 20, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 23, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: W. John McGuire, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2541 and Michael D. Barolsky, Esq., U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC, 615 E. Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
James McGinnis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-3025, or Parisa Haghshenas, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6723 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets and investment positions (“Portfolio Instruments”). Each Fund will disclose on its website the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units only and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Instruments and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons, or second-tier affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio Instruments currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing revisions to the content outline and selection specifications for the Private Securities Offerings Representative (Series 82) examination as part of the restructuring of the representative-level examination program.
The revised Series 82 content outline is attached.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
The SEC recently approved a proposed rule change to restructure the FINRA representative-level qualification examination program.
The restructured program eliminates duplicative testing of general securities knowledge on the current representative-level qualification examinations by moving such content into the SIE examination.
As part of the restructuring process and in consultation with a committee of industry representatives, FINRA undertook a review of the Private Securities Offerings Representative (Series 82) examination to remove the general securities knowledge currently covered on the examination and to create a tailored examination to test knowledge relevant to the day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions of a Private Securities Offerings Representative. As a result of this review, FINRA also is proposing to revise the Series 82 content outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination and to incorporate the functions and associated tasks currently performed by a Private Securities Offerings Representative. The proposed change will align the organization of the Series 82 content outline with the organization of the content outlines of the other revised representative-level examinations.
Beginning on October 1, 2018, new applicants seeking to register as Private Securities Offerings Representatives must pass the SIE examination and the revised Private Securities Offerings Representative (Series 82) examination.
The current Series 82 content outline is divided into four sections. The following are the four sections, denoted Section 1 through Section 4, with the associated number of questions:
1. Characteristics of Corporate Securities, 13 questions;
2. Regulation of The Market for Registered and Unregistered Securities, 45 questions;
3. Analyzing Corporate Securities and Investment Planning, 16 questions; and
4. Handling Customer Accounts and Industry Regulations, 26 questions.
In addition, each section includes references to the applicable laws, rules and regulations associated with that section. The current content outline also includes a preface (addressing, among other things, the purpose, administration and scoring of the examination), sample questions and reference materials.
As noted above, FINRA is proposing to move the general securities knowledge currently covered on the Series 82 examination to the SIE examination. For example, FINRA Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others) (the Gifts Rule) will now be tested on the SIE examination, rather than on the Series 82 examination. As a result, the revised Series 82 examination will test knowledge specific to the day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions of a Private Securities Offerings Representative.
Further, FINRA is proposing to reorganize the content outline by dividing it into four major job functions that are performed by a Private Securities Offerings Representative. The proposed change aligns the major job functions performed by a Private Securities Offerings Representative with the major job functions performed by other sales representatives, including Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Representatives, General Securities Representatives and Direct Participation Programs Representatives. The following are the four major job functions, denoted Function 1 through Function 4, with the associated number of questions:
Function 1: Seeks Business for the Broker-Dealer from Customers and Potential Customers, 25 questions;
Function 2: Opens Accounts After Obtaining and Evaluating Customers' Financial Profile and Investment Objectives, 9 questions;
Function 3: Provides Customers with Information About Investments, Makes Suitable Recommendations, Transfers Assets and Maintains Appropriate Records, 13 questions; and
Function 4: Obtains and Verifies Customers' Purchase Instructions and Agreements; Processes, Completes and Confirms Transactions, 3 questions.
FINRA also is proposing to adjust the number of questions assigned to each major job function to ensure that the overall examination better reflects the key tasks performed by a Private Securities Offerings Representative. The questions on the revised Series 82 examination will place emphasis on tasks such as seeking business for the broker-dealer from customers and potential customers, opening customer accounts, providing customers with suitable recommendations and verifying customer agreements and transactions.
Each function also includes specific tasks describing activities associated with performing that function. There are two tasks (1.1-1.2) associated with Function 1;
FINRA also is proposing to revise the content outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination. Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the content outline to reflect the adoption of new FINRA rules (
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 82 selection specifications and question bank.
Finally, FINRA is proposing to make other changes to the format of the content outline, including to the preface, sample questions and reference materials.
As a result of the proposed changes, the number of scored questions on the Series 82 examination will be reduced from 100 questions to 50 questions.
The current Series 82 content outline is available on FINRA's website. The revised Series 82 content outline will replace the current content outline on FINRA's website, and it will be made available on the website on the date of this filing.
FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will be October 1, 2018, to coincide with the implementation of the restructured representative-level examination program. FINRA will also announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 82 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The updated examination aligns with the functions and associated tasks currently performed by a Private Securities Offerings Representative and tests knowledge of the most current laws, rules, regulations and skills relevant to those functions and associated tasks. As such, the proposed revisions would make the examination more effective. FINRA also provided a detailed economic impact assessment regarding the introduction of the SIE examination and the restructuring of the representative-level examinations as part of the proposed rule change to restructure the FINRA representative-level qualification examination program.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ac2-1, pursuant to Section 17A(c) of the Exchange Act, generally requires transfer agents for whom the Commission is the transfer agent's Appropriate Regulatory Agency (“ARA”), to file an application for registration with the Commission on Form TA-1 and to amend their registrations under certain circumstances.
Specifically, Rule 17Ac2-1 requires transfer agents to file a Form TA-1 application for registration with the Commission where the Commission is their ARA. Such transfer agents must also amend their Form TA-1 if the existing information on their Form TA-1 becomes inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete within 60 days following the date the information became inaccurate, misleading or incomplete. Registration filings on Form TA-1 and amendments thereto must be filed with the Commission electronically, absent an exemption, on EDGAR pursuant to Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232).
The Commission annually receives approximately 186 filings on Form TA-1 from transfer agents required to register as such with the Commission. Included in this figure are
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 12f-1 (“Rule”), originally adopted in 1979 pursuant to Sections 12(f) and 23(a) of the Act, and as further modified in 1995 and 2005, sets forth the requirements for filing an exchange application to reinstate unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) in a security in which UTP has been suspended by the Commission pursuant to Section 12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. Under Rule 12f-1, an exchange must submit one copy of an application for reinstatement of UTP to the Commission that contains specified information, as set forth in the Rule. The application for reinstatement, pursuant to the Rule, must provide the name of the issuer, the title of the security, the name of each national securities exchange, if any, on which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges, whether transaction information concerning the security is reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan contemplated by Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, the date of the Commission's suspension of unlisted trading privileges in the security on the exchange, and any other pertinent information related to whether the reinstatement of UTP in the subject security is consistent with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors. Rule 12f-1 further requires a national securities exchange seeking to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted trading privileges in a security to indicate that it has provided a copy of such application to the issuer of the security, as well as to any other national securities exchange on which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges.
The information required by Rule 12f-1 enables the Commission to make the necessary findings under the Act prior to granting applications to reinstate unlisted trading privileges. This information is also made available to members of the public who may wish to comment upon the applications. Without the Rule, the Commission would be unable to fulfill these statutory responsibilities.
There are currently 21 national securities exchanges subject to Rule 12f-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12f-1 arises when a potential respondent seeks to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted trading privileges to any security for which unlisted trading privileges have been suspended by the Commission, pursuant to Section 12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. The staff estimates that each application would require approximately one hour to complete. Thus each potential respondent would incur on average one burden hour in complying with the Rule.
The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 21 responses annually for an aggregate hour burden for all respondents of 21 hours (21 responses × 1 hour per response). Each respondent's related internal cost of compliance for Rule 12f-1 would be $221.00, or, the cost of one hour of professional work of a paralegal needed to complete the application. The total annual cost of compliance for all potential respondents, therefore, is $4,641 (21 responses × $221.00 per response).
Compliance with Rule 12f-1 is mandatory. Rule 12f-1 does not have a record retention requirement
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This Advance Notice consists of amendments to FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (the “GSD Rules”)
FICC has also provided the following documentation to the Commission:
1. Backtesting results that reflect FICC's comparison of the aggregate Clearing Fund requirement (“CFR”) under GSD's current methodology and the aggregate CFR under the proposed methodology (as listed in the first paragraph above) to historical returns of end-of-day snapshots of each Netting Member's portfolio for the period May 2016 through October 2017. The CFR backtesting results under the proposed methodology were calculated in two ways for end-of-day portfolios: One set of results included the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment and the other set of results excluded the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment.
2. An impact study that shows the portfolio level VaR Charge under the proposed methodology for the period January 3, 2013 through December 30, 2016,
3. An impact study that shows the aggregate Required Fund Deposit amount by Netting Member for the period May 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017.
4. The GSD Initial Margin Model (the “QRM Methodology”) which would reflect the proposed methodology of the VaR Charge calculation and the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment.
FICC is requesting confidential treatment of the above-referenced backtesting results, impact studies and QRM Methodology, and has filed it separately with the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule changes have not been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the GSD Rules to propose changes to GSD's method of calculating Netting Members' margin, referred to in the GSD Rules as the Required Fund Deposit amount. Specifically, FICC is proposing to (1) change its method of calculating the VaR Charge component, (2) add the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment
In addition, FICC is proposing to provide transparency with respect to GSD's existing authority to calculate and assess Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit amounts.
The proposed QRM Methodology would reflect the proposed methodology of the VaR Charge calculation and the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment calculation.
GSD provides trade comparison, netting and settlement for the U.S. Government securities marketplace. Pursuant to the GSD Rules, Netting Members may process the following securities and transaction types through GSD: (1) Buy-sell transactions in eligible U.S. Treasury and Agency securities, (2) delivery versus payment repurchase agreement (“repo”) transactions, where the underlying collateral must be U.S. Treasury securities or Agency securities, and (3) GCF Repo Transactions, where the underlying collateral must be U.S. Treasury securities, Agency securities, or eligible mortgage-backed securities.
A key tool that FICC uses to manage counterparty risk is the daily calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposits from Netting Members.
As discussed below, a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit currently consists of the VaR Charge and, to the extent applicable, the Coverage Charge, the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, the Backtesting Charge, the Excess Capital Premium, and other components.
The VaR Charge generally comprises the largest portion of a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit amount. Currently, GSD uses a methodology referred to as the “full revaluation” approach to capture the market price risk associated with the securities in a Netting Member's portfolio. The full revaluation approach uses valuation algorithms to fully reprice each security in a Netting Member's portfolio over a range of historically simulated scenarios. These historical market moves are then used to project the potential gains or losses that could occur in connection with the liquidation of a defaulting Netting Member's portfolio to determine the amount of the VaR Charge, which is calibrated to cover the projected liquidation losses at a 99% confidence level.
The VaR Charge provides an estimate of the possible losses for a given portfolio based on a given confidence level over a particular time horizon. The current VaR Charge is calibrated at a 99% confidence level based on a front-weighted
In addition to the full revaluation approach that GSD uses to calculate the VaR Charge, GSD also utilizes “implied volatility indicators” among the assumptions and other observable market data as part of its volatility model. Specifically, GSD applies a multiplier (also known as the “augmented volatility adjustment multiplier”) to calculate the VaR Charge. The multiplier is based on the levels of change in current and implied volatility measures of market benchmarks.
FICC also employs a supplemental risk charge referred to as the Margin Proxy.
In addition to the VaR Charge, a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit calculation may include a number of other components including, but not limited to, the Coverage Charge, the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, and the Backtesting Charge.
The Coverage Charge is designed to address potential shortfalls
The Blackout Period Exposure Charge is applied when FICC determines that a GCF Counterparty has experienced backtesting deficiencies due to reductions in the notional value of the mortgage-backed securities used to collateralize its GCF Repo Transactions during the monthly Blackout Period. This charge is designed to mitigate FICC's exposure resulting from potential decreases in the collateral value of mortgage-backed securities that occur during the monthly Blackout Period.
The Backtesting Charge is applied when FICC determines that a Netting Member's portfolio has experienced backtesting deficiencies over the prior 12-month period. The Backtesting Charge is designed to mitigate exposures to GSD caused by settlement risks that may not be adequately captured by GSD's Required Fund Deposit.
The Excess Capital Premium is applied to a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit when its VaR Charge exceeds its Excess Capital. The Excess Capital Premium is designed to more effectively manage a Netting Member's credit risk to GSD that is caused because such Netting Member's trading activity has resulted in a VaR Charge that is greater than its excess regulatory capital.
FICC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. Backtesting compares the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member with actual price changes in the Netting Member's portfolio. The portfolio values are calculated using the actual positions in a Netting Member's portfolio on a given day and the observed security price changes over the following three days. The backtesting results are reviewed by FICC as part of its performance monitoring and assessment of the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. As noted above, a Backtesting Charge may be assessed if GSD determines that a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit may not fully address the projected liquidation losses estimated from such Netting Member's settlement activity. Similarly, the Coverage Charge may be assessed to address potential shortfalls in the VaR Charge calculation. The Coverage Charge supplements the VaR Charge to help ensure that the Netting Member's backtesting coverage achieves the 99% confidence level. The Coverage Charge considers the backtesting results of only the VaR Charge (including the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier) and mark-to-market, while the Backtesting Charge considers the total Required Fund Deposit amount.
FICC is proposing to amend its calculation of GSD's VaR Charge because during the fourth quarter of 2016, FICC's current methodology for calculating the VaR Charge did not respond effectively to the market volatility that existed at that time. As a result, the VaR Charge did not achieve backtesting coverage at a 99% confidence level and therefore yielded backtesting deficiencies beyond FICC's risk tolerance. In response, FICC implemented the Margin Proxy to help ensure that each Netting Member's VaR Charge achieves a minimum 99% confidence level and, at the minimum, mirrors historical price moves, while FICC continued the development effort on the proposed sensitivity based approach to remediate the observed model weaknesses.
As a result of FICC's review of GSD's existing VaR model deficiencies, FICC is proposing to: (1) Replace the full revaluation approach with the sensitivity approach, (2) eliminate the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier, (3) employ the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation rather than as a minimum volatility calculation, (4) utilize a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical data, and (5) establish a minimum calculation, referred to as the VaR Floor (as defined below in subsection 5), as the minimum VaR Charge. These proposed changes are described in detail below.
FICC is proposing to address GSD's existing VaR model deficiencies by replacing the full revaluation method with the sensitivity approach.
FICC believes that the proposed sensitivity approach would address these deficiencies because it would leverage external vendor
The sensitivity data would be generated by a vendor based on its econometric, risk and pricing models.
• Key rate measures the sensitivity of a price change to changes in interest rates;
• convexity measures the degree of curvature in the price/yield relationship of key interest rates;
• implied inflation rate measures the difference between the yield on an ordinary bond and the yield on an inflation-indexed bond with the same maturity;
• agency spread is yield spread that is added to a benchmark yield curve to discount an Agency bond's cash flows to match its market price;
• mortgage-backed securities spread is the yield spread that is added to a benchmark yield curve to discount a to-be-announced (“TBA”) security's cash flows to match its market price;
• volatility reflects the implied volatility observed from the swaption market to estimate fluctuations in interest rates;
• mortgage basis captures the basis risk between the prevailing mortgage rate and a blended Treasury rate; and
• time risk factor accounts for the time value change (or carry adjustment) over the assumed liquidation period.
The above-referenced risk factors are similar to the risk factors currently utilized in MBSD's sensitivity approach, however, GSD has included other risk factors that are specific to the U.S. Treasury securities, Agency securities and mortgage-backed securities cleared through GSD.
Concerning U.S. Treasury securities and Agency securities, FICC would select the following risk factors: Key rates, convexity, agency spread, implied inflation rates, volatility, and time.
For mortgage-backed securities, each security would be mapped to a corresponding TBA forward contract and FICC would use the risk exposure analytics for the TBA as an estimate for the mortgage-backed security's risk exposure analytics. FICC would use the following risk factors to model a TBA security: Key rates, convexity, mortgage-backed securities spread, volatility, mortgage basis, and time. To account for differences between mortgage-backed securities and their corresponding TBA, FICC would apply an additional basis risk adjustment.
FICC's proposal to use the vendor's risk analytics data requires that FICC take steps to mitigate potential model risk. FICC has reviewed a description of the vendor's calculation methodology and the manner in which the market data is used to calibrate the vendor's models. FICC understands and is comfortable with the vendor's controls, governance process and data quality standards. FICC would conduct an independent review of the vendor's release of a new version of its model prior to using it in GSD's proposed sensitives approach calculation. In the event that the vendor changes its model and methodologies that produce the risk factors and risk sensitivities, FICC would analyze the effect of the proposed changes on GSD's proposed sensitivity approach. Future changes to the QRM Methodology would be subject to a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4 (“Rule 19b-4”)
Under the proposed approach, a Netting Member's portfolio risk sensitivities would be calculated by FICC as the aggregate of the security level risk sensitivities weighted by the corresponding position market values. More specifically, FICC would look at the historical changes of the chosen risk factors during the look-back period in order to generate risk scenarios to arrive at the market value changes for a given portfolio. A statistical probability distribution would be formed from the portfolio's market value changes, which are then calibrated to cover the projected liquidation losses at a 99% confidence level. The portfolio risk sensitivities and the historical risk factor time series data would then be used by FICC's risk model to calculate the VaR Charge for each Netting Member.
The proposed sensitivity approach differs from the current full revaluation approach mainly in how the market value changes are calculated. The full revaluation approach accounts for changes in market variables and instrument specific characteristics of U.S. Treasury/Agency securities and mortgage-backed securities by incorporating certain historical data to calibrate a pricing model that generates simulated prices. This data is used to create a distribution of returns per each security. By comparison, the proposed sensitivity approach would simulate the market value changes of a Netting Member's portfolio under a given market scenario as the sum of the portfolio risk factor exposures multiplied by the corresponding risk factor movements.
FICC believes that the sensitivity approach would provide three key benefits. First, the sensitivity approach incorporates a broad range of structured risk factors and a Netting Member portfolios' exposure to these risk factors, while the full revaluation approach is calibrated with only security level historical data that is supplemented by the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier. The proposed sensitivity approach integrates both observed risk factor changes and current market conditions to more effectively respond to current market price moves that may not be reflected in the historical price moves combined with the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier. In this regard, FICC has concluded, based on its assessment of the backtesting results of the proposed sensitivity approach and its comparison of those results to the backtesting results of the current full revaluation approach
The second benefit of the proposed sensitivity approach is that it would provide more transparency to Netting Members. Because Netting Members typically use risk factor analysis for their own risk and financial reporting, such Members would have comparable data and analysis to assess the variation in their VaR Charge based on changes in
The third benefit of the proposed sensitivity approach is that it would provide FICC with the ability to adjust the look-back period that FICC uses for purposes of calculating the VaR Charge. Specifically, FICC would change the look-back period from a front-weighted
While FICC could extend the 1-year look-back period in the existing full revaluation approach to a 10-year look-back period, the performance of the existing model could deteriorate if current market conditions are materially different than indicated in the historical data. Additionally, since the full revaluation approach requires FICC to maintain in-house complex pricing models and mortgage prepayment models, enhancing these models to extend the look-back period to include 10 years of historical data involves significant model development. The sensitivity approach, on the other hand, would leverage external vendor data to incorporate a longer look-back period of 10 years, which would allow the proposed model to capture periods of historical volatility.
In the event FICC observes that the 10-year look-back period does not contain a sufficient number of stressed market conditions, FICC would have the ability to include an additional period of historically observed stressed market conditions to a 10-year look-back period or adjust the length of look-back period. The additional stress period is a designed to be a continuous period (typically 1 year). FICC believes that it is appropriate to assess on an annual basis whether an additional stressed period should be included. This assessment, which will only occur annually, would include a review of (1) the largest moves in the dominating market risk factor of the proposed sensitivity approach, (2) the impact analyses resulting from the removal and/or addition of a stressed period, and (3) the backtesting results of the proposed look-back period. As described in the QRM Methodology, approval by DTCC's Model Risk Governance Committee (“MRGC”) and, to the extent necessary, the Management Risk Committee (“MRC”) would be required to determine when to apply an additional period of stressed market conditions to the look-back period and the appropriate historical stressed period to utilize if it is not within the current 10-year period.
As described above, the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier gives GSD the ability to adjust its volatility calculations as needed to improve the performance of its VaR the model in periods of market volatility. The augmented volatility adjustment multiplier was designed to mitigate the effect of the 1-year look‐back period used in the existing full revaluation approach because it allowed the model to better react to conditions that may not have been within the recent historical one-year period. FICC is proposing to eliminate the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier because it would be no longer necessary given that the proposed sensitivity approach would have a longer look-back period and the ability to include an additional stressed market condition to account for periods of market volatility.
In connection with FICC's proposal to source data for the proposed sensitivity approach, FICC is also proposing procedures that would govern in the event that the vendor fails to provide risk analytics data. If the vendor fails to provide any data or a significant portion of the data timely, FICC would use the most recently available data on the first day that such data disruption occurs. If it is determined that the vendor will resume providing data within five (5) business days, FICC's management would determine whether the VaR Charge should continue to be calculated by using the most recently available data along with an extended look-back period or whether the Margin Proxy should be invoked, subject to the approval of DTCC's Group Chief Risk Officer or his/her designee. If it is determined that the data disruption will extend beyond five (5) business days, the Margin Proxy would be applied as an alternative volatility calculation for the VaR Charge subject to the proposed VaR Floor.
As noted above, FICC intends to source certain sensitivity data and risk factor data from a vendor. FICC's Quantitative Risk Management, Vendor Risk Management, and Information Technology teams have conducted due diligence of the vendor in order to evaluate its control framework for managing key risks. FICC's due diligence included an assessment of the vendor's technology risk, business continuity, regulatory compliance, and privacy controls. FICC has existing policies and procedures for data management that includes market data and analytical data provided by vendors. These policies and procedures do not have to be amended in connection with this proposed rule change. FICC also has tools in place to assess the quality of the data that it receives from vendors.
Rule 1001(c)(1) of Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“SCI”) requires FICC to establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed written policies and procedures that include the criteria for identifying responsible SCI personnel, the designation and documentation of responsible SCI personnel, and escalation procedures to quickly inform responsible SCI personnel of potential SCI events.
Occasionally, portfolios contain classes of securities that reflect market price changes that are not consistently related to historical risk factors. The value of these securities is often uncertain because the securities' market volume varies widely, thus the price histories are limited. Because the volume and price information for such securities is not robust, a historical simulation approach would not generate VaR Charge amounts that adequately reflect the risk profile of such securities. Currently, GSD Rule 4 provides that FICC may use a historic index volatility model to calculate the VaR Charge for these classes of securities.
FICC believes that the proposal to implement a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical information would allow FICC to use appropriate market data to estimate a margin at a 99% confident level, thus helping to ensure that sufficient margin would be calculated for portfolios that contain these securities. FICC would continue to manage the market risk of clearing these securities by conducting analysis on the type of securities that cannot be processed by the proposed VaR model and engaging in periodic reviews of the haircuts used for calculating margin for these types of securities.
FICC is proposing to calculate the VaR Charge for these securities by utilizing a haircut approach based on a market benchmark with a similar risk profile as the related security. The proposed haircut approach would be calculated separately for U.S. Treasury/Agency securities (other than (x) treasury floating-rate notes and (y) term repo rate volatility for Term Repo Transactions and Forward-Starting Repo Transactions (including term and forward-starting GCF Repo Transactions))
Specifically, each security in a Netting Member's portfolio would be mapped to a respective benchmark based on the security's asset class and remaining maturity, then all securities within each benchmark would be aggregated into a net exposure. FICC would apply an applicable haircut to the net exposure per benchmark to determine the net price risk for each benchmark. Finally, the net price risk would be aggregated across all benchmarks (but separately for U.S. Treasury/Agency securities and mortgage-backed securities) and a correlation adjustment
FICC is proposing to amend the existing calculation of the VaR Charge to include a minimum amount, which would be referred to as the “VaR Floor.” The proposed VaR Floor would be a calculated amount that would be used as the VaR Charge when the sum of the amounts calculated by the proposed sensitivity approach and haircut method is less than the proposed VaR Floor. FICC's proposal to establish a VaR Floor seeks to address the risk that the proposed VaR model calculates a VaR Charge that is erroneously low where the gross market value of unsettled positions in the Netting Member's portfolio is high and the cost of liquidation in the event of a Member default could also be high. This would be likely to occur when the proposed VaR model applies substantial risk offsets among long and short positions in different classes of securities that have a high degree of historical price correlation. Because this high degree of historical price correlation may not apply in future changing market conditions,
The VaR Floor would be calculated as the sum of the following two components: (1) A U.S. Treasury/Agency bond margin floor and (2) a mortgage-backed securities margin floor. The U.S. Treasury/Agency bond margin floor would be calculated by mapping each U.S. Treasury/Agency security to a tenor bucket, then multiplying the gross positions of each tenor bucket by its bond floor rate, and summing the results. The bond floor rate of each tenor bucket would be a fraction (which would be initially set at 10%) of an index-based haircut rate for such tenor bucket. The mortgage-backed securities margin floor would be calculated by multiplying the gross market value of the total value of mortgage-backed securities in a Netting Member's portfolio by a designated amount, referred to as the pool floor rate, (which would be initially set at 0.05%).
For the reasons described above, FICC believes that the proposed changes to GSD's VaR Charge calculation would allow it to better measure and mitigate the risks presented by certain unsettled positions, including the risk presented to FICC when those positions are concentrated in a particular security.
One of the risks presented by unsettled positions concentrated in an asset class is that FICC may not be able to liquidate or hedge the unsettled positions of a defaulted Netting Member in the assumed timeframe at the market price in the event of such Netting Member's default. Because FICC relies on external market data in connection with monitoring exposures to its Members, the market data may not reflect the market impact transaction costs associated with the potential liquidation as the concentration risk of an unsettled position increases. However, FICC believes that, through the proposed changes and through existing risk management measures,
FICC will continue to evaluate its exposures to these risks. Any future proposed changes to the margin methodology to address such risks would be subject to a separate proposed rule change pursuant Rule 19b-4 of the Act,
FICC is proposing to add a new component to the Required Fund Deposit calculation that would be applied to the VaR Charge for all GCF Counterparties with GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the monthly Blackout Period (the “Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment”). FICC is proposing this new component because it would better protect FICC and its Netting Members from losses that could result from overstated values of mortgage-backed securities pledged as collateral for GCF Repo Transactions during the Blackout Period.
The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be in the form of a charge that is added to the VaR Charge or a credit that would reduce the VaR Charge. The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be calculated by (1) projecting an average pay-down rate for the government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), respectively, then (2) multiplying the projected pay-down rate
The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would only be imposed during the Blackout Period and it would be applied as of the morning Clearing Fund call on the Record Date through and including the intraday Clearing Fund call on the Factor Date,
FICC would eliminate the existing Blackout Period Exposure Charge
FICC is proposing to eliminate the Coverage Charge component from GSD's Required Fund Deposit calculation.
As part of the development and assessment of the proposed VaR Charge, FICC backtested the model's performance and analyzed the impact of the margin changes. Results of the analysis indicated that the proposed sensitivity approach would be more responsive to changing market dynamics and a Netting Member's portfolio composition coverage than the existing VaR model that utilizes the full revaluation approach. The backtesting analysis also demonstrated that the proposed sensitivity approach would provide sufficient margin coverage on a standalone basis. Additionally, in the event that FICC observes unexpected deficiencies in the backtesting of a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit, the Backtesting Charge would apply.
FICC is proposing to amend the Backtesting Charge to (i) include backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period and (ii) give GSD the authority to assess a Backtesting Charge on an intraday basis.
FICC is proposing to amend the Backtesting Charge to provide that this charge would be applied to a GCF Counterparty that experiences backtesting deficiencies that are attributed to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period. Currently, Backtesting Charges are not applied to GCF Counterparties with collateralized mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period because such counterparties may be subject to a Blackout Period Exposure Charge. However, now that FICC is proposing to eliminate the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, FICC is proposing to amend the applicability of the Backtesting Charge in the circumstances described above.
FICC is also proposing to amend the Backtesting Charge to provide that this charge may be assessed if a Netting Member is experiencing backtesting deficiencies during the trading day (
The proposed assessment of the Intraday Backtesting Charge differs from the existing assessment of the Backtesting Charge because the existing assessment is based on the backtesting results of a Netting Member's PM RFD versus the historical returns of such Netting Member's portfolio at the end of the trading day while the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would be based on the most recent Required Fund Deposit amount that was collected from a Netting Member versus the historical returns of such Netting Member's portfolio intraday.
In an effort to differentiate the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge from the existing Backtesting Charge, FICC is proposing to change the name of the existing Backtesting Charge to “Regular Backtesting Charge.” The
FICC would use a snapshot of each Netting Member's portfolio during the trading day,
As is the case with the existing Backtesting Charge (which would be referred to as the “Regular Backtesting Charge”), the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would be assessed on Netting Members with portfolios that experience at least three intraday backtesting deficiencies over the prior 12-month period. The proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would generally equal a Netting Member's third largest historical intraday backtesting deficiency because FICC believes that an Intraday Backtesting Charge equal to the third largest historical intraday backtesting deficiency would bring the affected Netting Member's historically observed intraday backtesting coverage above the 99% confidence level.
FICC would have the discretion to adjust the Intraday Backtesting Charge to an amount that is more appropriate for maintaining such Netting Member's intraday backtesting results above the 99% coverage threshold.
In the event that FICC determines that an Intraday Backtesting Charge should apply in the circumstances described above, FICC would notify the affected Netting Member prior to its assessment of the charge. As is the case with the existing application of the Backtesting Charge, FICC would notify Netting Members on or around the 25th calendar day of the month.
The proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would be applied to the affected Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit on a daily basis for a one-month period. FICC would review the assessed Intraday Backtesting Charge on a monthly basis to determine if the charge is still applicable and that the amount charged continues to provide appropriate coverage. In the event that an affected Netting Member's trailing 12-month intraday backtesting coverage exceeds 99% (without taking into account historically imposed Intraday Backtesting Charges), the Intraday Backtesting Charge would be removed.
FICC is proposing to move to a net capital measure for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members that would align the Excess Capital Premium for such Members to a measure that is consistent with the equity capital measure that is used for Bank Netting Members in the Excess Capital Premium calculation.
Currently, the Excess Capital Premium is determined based on the amount that a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit exceeds its Excess Capital.
FICC is proposing this change because of the Commission's amendments to Rule 15c3-1 (the “Net Capital Rule”), which were adopted in 2013.
FICC believes that the Net Capital Rule is an effective process of separating liquid and illiquid assets, and computing a broker/dealer's regulatory net capital that should replace GSD's existing practice of using Excess Net Capital (which is the difference between the Net Capital and the minimum regulatory Net Capital) as the basis for the Excess Capital Premium.
Separate and apart from the AM RFD and the PM RFD, the GSD Rules give FICC the existing authority to collect Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposits from Netting Members.
Pursuant to the GSD Rules, the Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposits is determined based on GSD's observations of a Netting Member's simulated VaR Charge as it is re-calculated throughout the trading day based on the open positions of such Member's portfolio at designated times
The Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit is designed to mitigate exposure to GSD that results from large fluctuations in a Netting Member's portfolio due to new and settled trade activities that are not otherwise covered by a Netting Member's recently collected Required Fund Deposit. FICC determines whether to assess an Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit by tracking three criteria (each, a “Parameter Break”) for each Netting Member. The first Parameter Break evaluates whether a Netting Member's Intraday VaR Charge equals or exceeds a set dollar amount (as determined by FICC from time to time) when compared to the VaR Charge that was included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit (the “Dollar Threshold”). The second Parameter Break evaluates whether the Intraday VaR Charge equals or exceeds a percentage increase (as determined by FICC from time to time) of the VaR Charge that was included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, if applicable, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit (the “Percentage Threshold”). The third Parameter Break evaluates whether a Netting Member is experiencing backtesting results below the 99% confidence level (the “Coverage Target”).
The purpose of the Dollar Threshold is to identify Netting Members with additional risk exposures that represent a substantial portion of the Clearing Fund. FICC believes these Netting Members pose an increased risk of loss to GSD because the coverage provided by the Clearing Fund (which is designed to cover the aggregate losses of all Netting Members' portfolios) would be substantially impacted by large exposures. In other words, in the event that a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit is not sufficient to satisfy losses to GSD caused by the liquidation of the defaulted Netting Member's portfolio, FICC will use the Clearing Fund to satisfy such losses. However, because the Clearing Fund must be available to satisfy potential losses that may arise from any Netting Member's defaults, GSD will be exposed to a significant risk of loss if a defaulted Netting Member's additional risk exposure accounted for a substantial portion of the Clearing Fund.
The Dollar Threshold is set to an amount that would help to ensure that the aggregate additional risk exposure of all Netting Members does not exceed 5% of the Clearing Fund. FICC believes that the availability of at least 95% of the Clearing Fund to satisfy all other liquidation losses caused by a defaulted Netting Member is sufficient to mitigate risks posed to FICC by such losses.
Currently, the Dollar Threshold equals a change in a Netting Member's Intraday VaR Charge that equals or exceeds $1,000,000 when compared to the VaR Charge that was included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, if applicable, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit. On an annual basis, FICC assesses the sufficiency of the Dollar Threshold, and may adjust the Dollar Threshold if FICC determines that an adjustment is necessary to provide GSD with reasonable coverage.
The purpose of the Percentage Threshold is to identify Netting Members with Intraday VaR Charge amounts that reflect significant changes when such amounts are compared to the VaR Charge that was included as a component in such Netting Member's most recently collected Required Fund Deposit. FICC believes that these Netting Members pose an increased risk of loss to GSD because the most recently collected VaR Charge (which is designed to cover estimated losses to a portfolio over a three-day liquidation period at least 99% of the time) may not adequately reflect a Netting Member's portfolio with such Netting Member's significant intraday changes in additional risk exposure. Thus, in the event that the Netting Member defaults during the trading day the Netting Member's most recently collected Required Fund Deposit may be insufficient to cover the liquidation of its portfolio within a three-day liquidation period.
Currently, the Percentage Threshold is equal to a Netting Member's Intraday VaR Charge that equals or exceeds 100% of the most recently calculated VaR Charge included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, if applicable, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit. On an annual basis, FICC assesses the sufficiency of the Percentage Threshold and may adjust the Percentage Threshold if it determines that such adjustment is necessary to provide GSD with reasonable coverage.
The purpose of the Coverage Target is to identify Netting Members with backtesting results
In the event that FICC determines that a Netting Member's additional risk exposure breaches all three Parameter Breaks, FICC will assess an Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit. Should FICC determine that certain market conditions exist
FICC has the discretion to waive or change
This proposed rule change would become operative 45 business days after the later date of the Commission's notice of no objection to this Advance Notice and its approval of the related proposed rule change.
Prior to the effective date, FICC would add a legend to the GSD Rules to state that the specified changes to the GSD Rules are approved but not yet operative, and to provide the date such approved changes would become operative. The legend would also include the file numbers of the approved proposed rule change and Advance Notice Filing and would state that once operative, the legend would automatically be removed from the GSD Rules.
FICC is proposing to amend the term “Backtesting Charge” to provide that a GCF Counterparty's backtesting deficiencies attributable to collateralized mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would be considered in FICC's assessment of the applicability of the charge. FICC is also proposing to amend the definition of the term “Backtesting Charge” to provide that an Intraday Backtesting Charge may be assessed based on the backtesting results of a Netting Member's intraday portfolio. In order to differentiate the Intraday Backtesting charge from the existing application of the Backtesting Charge, the existing charge would be referred to as the “Regular Backtesting Charge.” As a result of this proposed change, FICC would be permitted to assess an Intraday Backtesting Charge based on a Netting Member's intraday portfolio and a Regular Backtesting Charge based on a Netting Member's end of day portfolio. As a result of this proposed change, FICC's calculation of the Intraday Backtesting Charge and the Regular Backtesting Charge could include deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period.
FICC is proposing to add the new defined term “Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment” to define a new component in the Required Fund Deposit calculation. This component would apply to all GCF Counterparties with exposure to mortgage-backed securities in their portfolio during the Blackout Period.
FICC is proposing to delete the term “Blackout Period Exposure Charge.” This component would no longer be necessary because the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be applied to all GCF Counterparties with exposure to mortgage-backed securities in their portfolio.
FICC is proposing to delete the term “Coverage Charge” because this component would be eliminated from the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to delete the term “Excess Capital” because FICC is proposing to add the new defined term “Netting Member Capital.”
FICC is proposing to amend the definition of the term “Excess Capital Ratio” to reflect the replacement of “Excess Capital” with “Netting Member Capital.”
FICC is proposing to change the term “Intraday Supplemental Clearing Fund Deposit” to “Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit” because the latter is consistent with the term that is reflected in GSD Rule 4.
FICC is proposing to amend the term “Margin Proxy” to reflect that the Margin Proxy would be used as an alternative volatility calculation.
FICC is proposing to add the new defined term “Netting Member Capital” to reflect the change to the Net Capital for Broker Netting Members', Inter-Broker Dealer Netting Members' and Dealer Netting Members' calculation of the Excess Capital Ratio.
FICC is proposing to amend the definition of the term “VaR Charge” to establish that (1) the Margin Proxy would be utilized as an alternative volatility calculation in the event that the requisite data used to employ the sensitivity approach is unavailable, and (2) a VaR Floor would be utilized as the VaR Charge in the event that the proposed model based approach yields an amount that is lower than the VaR Floor.
FICC is proposing to eliminate the reference to “Coverage Charge” because this component would no longer be included in the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to add the “Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment” because this would be a new component included in the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to eliminate the reference to “Blackout Period Exposure Charge” because this component would no longer be included in the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to renumber this section in order to accommodate the above-referenced proposed changes.
FICC is proposing to define “Net Unsettled Position” because it is a defined term in GSD Rule 1.
FICC is proposing to amend this section to state that a haircut method would be utilized based on the historic index volatility model for the purposes of calculating the VaR Charge for classes of securities that cannot be handled by the VaR model's methodology.
FICC is proposing to delete the paragraph relating to the Margin Proxy because the Margin Proxy would no longer be used to supplement the VaR Charge.
The QRM Methodology document provides the methodology by which FICC would calculate the VaR Charge with the proposed sensitivity approach as well as other components of the Required Fund Deposit calculation. The QRM Methodology document specifies (i) the model inputs, parameters, assumptions and qualitative adjustments, (ii) the calculation used to generate Required Fund Deposit amounts, (iii) additional calculations
FICC believes that the proposed change to the Required Fund Deposit calculation, which consists of proposals to (1) change its method of calculating the VaR Charge component, (2) add a new component referred to as the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment, (3) eliminate the Blackout Period Exposure Charge and the Coverage Charge components, (4) amend the Backtesting Charge component to (i) include the backtesting deficiencies of certain GCF Counterparties during the Blackout Period and (ii) give GSD the ability to assess the Backtesting Charge on an intraday basis for all Netting Members, and (5) amend the calculation for determining the Excess Capital Premium for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members, would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members arising out of the activity in their portfolios.
FICC's proposal to change the existing VaR methodology from one that employs a full revaluation approach to one that employs a sensitivity approach would affect FICC's management of risk by addressing the deficiencies observed in the current model by leveraging external vendor expertise in supplying the market risk attributes that would then be incorporated by FICC into its model to calculate the VaR Charge to Members. The proposed methodology would enhance FICC's risk management capabilities because it would enable sensitivity analysis of key model parameters and assumptions. The sensitivity approach would allow FICC to attribute market price moves to various risk factors (such as key rates, agency spread, and mortgage basis) that would enable FICC to view and respond more effectively to market volatility.
As noted above, the proposed sensitivity approach would leverage external vendor expertise in supplying the market risk attributes. FICC would manage the risks associated with a potential data disruption by using the most recently available data on the first day that a data disruption occurs. If it is determined that the vendor would resume providing data within five (5) business days, FICC management would determine whether the VaR Charge should continue to be calculated by using the most recently available data along with an extended look-back period or whether the Margin Proxy should be invoked.
FICC's proposal to eliminate the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier would affect FICC's management of risk because the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier would no longer be necessary given that the proposed sensitivity approach would have a longer look-back period and the ability to include an additional stressed market condition to account for periods of market volatility. As described in Item II.(B)I. above, the proposed sensitivity approach would provide FICC with the ability to leverage a 10-year look-back period plus, to the extent applicable, an additional stressed period for purposes of calculating the VaR Charge. FICC's ability to extend the look back period would help to ensure that the historical simulation contains a sufficient number of market conditions (including but not limited to stressed market conditions), which would allow FICC to manage risks by more effectively capturing the risk profile of Netting Members during times of market stress.
FICC's proposal to employ the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation rather than as a minimum volatility calculation would affect FICC's management of risk by helping to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model.
As described in Item II.(B)I. above, if the vendor fails to provide any data or a significant portion of the data timely, FICC would use the most recently available data on the first day that such data disruption occurs. If it is determined that the vendor will resume providing data within five (5) business days, FICC management would determine whether the VaR Charge should continue to be calculated by using the most recently available data along with an extended look-back period or whether the Margin Proxy should be invoked, subject to the approval of DTCC's Group Chief Risk Officer or his/her designee. If it is determined that the data disruption will extend beyond five (5) business days, the Margin Proxy would be applied, subject to the approval of the MRC followed by notification to FICC's Board Risk Committee.
FICC's proposal to implement a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical information would affect FICC's management of risk because the proposed change would better describe FICC's method of capturing the risk profile of these securities, thus helping to ensure that sufficient margin would be calculated for the related portfolios. FICC would continue to manage the market risk of clearing securities with inadequate historical data by conducting analysis on the type of securities that do not fall within the historical look-back period of the proposed VaR model and engaging in periodic reviews of the haircuts used for calculating margin for these types of securities.
FICC's proposal to implement the VaR Floor would affect FICC's management of risk because the proposed VaR Floor would address a risk that the proposed sensitivity approach could calculate a VaR Charge that is too low in connection with certain portfolios where the proposed VaR model applies substantial risk offsets among long and short positions in different classes of securities that have historical price correlation. Since this level of historical price correlation may not apply in future changing market conditions, FICC believes that it is prudent to apply a VaR Floor that is based upon the market value of the gross of unsettled positions in the Netting Member's portfolio. The VaR Floor would therefore provide GSD
FICC's proposal to establish the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would affect FICC's management of risk because the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would better protect GSD and its Netting Members from losses that could result from overstated values of mortgage-backed securities pledged as collateral for GCF Repo Transactions during the Blackout Period. FICC believes that the proposed adjustment would help to maintain GCF Counterparties' backtesting coverage above the 99% confidence threshold because the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be applied to the VaR Charge for all GCF Counterparties with GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the monthly Blackout Period. In the event that a GCF Counterparty continues to experience backtesting deficiencies, FICC would apply the existing Backtesting Charge pursuant to the GSD Rules, which would be amended to consider deficiencies attributable to Blackout Period exposures during the Blackout Period.
FICC's proposal to eliminate the Coverage Charge component from GSD's Required Fund Deposit calculation would affect FICC's management of risk because the proposed change would remove an unnecessary component from the Required Fund Deposit calculation. As described above, the Coverage Charge is based on historical portfolio activity, which may not be indicative of a Netting Member's current risk profile but was determined by FICC to be appropriate to address potential shortfalls in margin charges under the current VaR model. As part of FICC's development and assessment of the proposed VaR Charge, FICC obtained an independent validation of the proposed model by an external party, performed back testing to validate model performance, and conducted analysis to determine the impact of the changes to Netting Members. Results of the analysis indicate that the proposed sensitivity approach would be more responsive to changing market dynamics and provide better coverage than the existing full revaluation approach. Given the proposed improvement in model coverage, FICC believes that the Coverage Charge component would no longer be necessary.
The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would allow GSD to eliminate the existing Blackout Period Exposure Charge because the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be applied to all GCF Counterparties with GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period, while the existing Blackout Period Exposure Charge only applies to GCF Counterparties that have two or more backtesting deficiencies that occurred during the Blackout Period and whose overall 12-month trailing backtesting coverage falls below the 99% coverage target. FICC believes that the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would help to maintain GCF Counterparties' backtesting coverage above the 99% confidence threshold. In the event that a GCF Counterparty continues to experience backtesting deficiencies, FICC would apply the existing Backtesting Charge pursuant to the GSD Rules. As described below, the Backtesting Charge would be amended to include deficiencies related to Blackout Period Exposure during the Blackout Period. Given the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment and the amendment of the Backtesting Charge, FICC believes that the existing Blackout Period Exposure Charge component would no longer be necessary.
FICC's proposal to assess an Intraday Backtesting Charge on a Netting Member's portfolio during the trading day would affect FICC's management of risk because it would address the risk that a Netting Member's most recently collect Required Fund Deposit may be insufficient to cover its intraday trading activity. Thus, the proposed change would give FICC the ability to better limit its credit exposures to Netting Members on an intraday basis.
FICC's proposal to amend the charge to consider deficiencies attributable to Blackout Period exposures would be included only during the Blackout Period would address the risk that a defaulted GCF Counterparty's portfolio contains exposure to GCF Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities that is not adequately captured by the GCF Counterparty's Required Fund Deposit. Thus, the proposed change would allow FICC to continue to maintain coverage of FICC's credit exposures to such GCF Repo Participant at a high degree of confidence during the period when this risk regarding the valuation of such GCF Transactions could exist.
FICC believes that the proposed change to move to a net capital measure for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members would affect FICC's management of risk because the proposed change would better align the Excess Capital Premium for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members to a measure that would be consistent with the equity capital measure that is currently used for Bank Netting Members in the Excess Capital Premium calculation, while continuing to provide an effective means to manage risks posed by a Netting Member whose activity causes it to have VaR Charge that is greater than its regulatory capital.
FICC's proposal to provide transparency with respect to GSD's current practice of calculating Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposits would affect FICC's management of risk because it would help Netting Members understand the process and circumstances under which GSD may collect Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit from Netting Members. The collection of Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposits is designed to mitigate FICC's exposure resulting from large intraday fluctuations in Netting Members' portfolios due to new and settled trade activities.
FICC managed the effect of the overall proposal by conducting extensive outreach with Netting Members regarding the proposed changes, educating Netting Members on the reasons for these proposed changes, and explaining the related risk management improvements. FICC invited all Netting Members to customer forums in an effort to provide transparency regarding the changes and the expected macro
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
For the reasons described below, FICC believes that the proposed changes in this advance notice are consistent with the objectives and principles of these risk management standards as described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act and in the Covered Clearing Agency Standards.
As discussed above, FICC is proposing a number of changes to GSD's Required Fund Deposit calculation—a key tool that FICC uses to mitigate potential losses to FICC associated with liquidating a Netting Member's portfolio in the event of Netting Member default. FICC believes the proposed changes are consistent with promoting robust risk management because they are designed to enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Members in the event of a Member default. Specifically, (1) the proposed change to utilize the sensitivity approach would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members because the sensitivity approach would incorporate a broad range of structured risk factors as well as an extended look-back period that would calculate better margin coverage for FICC, (2) the proposed use of the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members because it would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model, (3) the proposed haircut method would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members because it would provide a better assessment of the risks associated with classes of securities with inadequate historical pricing data, (4) the proposed VaR Floor would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members because it would help to ensure that each Netting Member has a minimum VaR Charge in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios, (5) the proposal to add the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component and the proposal to amend the Backtesting Charge to consider backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members because these changes would help to ensure that FICC collects sufficient margin from GCF Counterparties with GCF Repo Transactions collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation during the Blackout Period, (6) the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members because it would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day, and (7) the proposed change to the Excess Capital Premium calculation would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members because it would help to ensure that FICC does not unnecessarily increase its calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposit amounts for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members. Finally, FICC's proposal to eliminate the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier would enable FICC to eliminate components that do not measure risk as accurately as the proposed and existing risk management measures, as described above.
Therefore, because the proposal is designed to enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members in the manner described above, FICC believes it is consistent with promoting robust risk management.
Furthermore, FICC believes that the changes proposed in this advance notice are consistent with promoting safety and soundness, which, in turn, is consistent with reducing systemic risks and supporting the stability of the broader financial system, consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
FICC believes that the proposed changes listed above are consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Item II.(B) I. above enhance FICC's ability to identify, measure, monitor and manage its credit exposures to Netting Members and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes because the proposed changes would collectively help to ensure that FICC maintains sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each Netting Member with a high degree of confidence.
Because each of the proposed changes to FICC's Required Fund Deposit calculation would provide FICC with a more effective measure of the risks that these calculations were designed to assess, the proposed changes would permit FICC to more effectively identify, measure, monitor and manage its exposures to market price risk, and would enable it to better limit its exposure to potential losses from Netting Member default. Specifically, the proposed changes described in Item II.(B)I. above are designed to help ensure that GSD appropriately calculates and collects margin to cover its credit exposure to each Netting Member with a high degree of confidence because (1) the proposed change to utilize the sensitivity approach would provide better margin coverage for FICC, (2) the proposed use of the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model, (3) the proposed haircut method would provide a better assessment of the risks associated with classes of securities with inadequate historical pricing data, (4) the proposed VaR Floor would limit FICC's credit exposures to Netting Members in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios, (5) the proposal eliminates the Blackout Period Exposure, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier because FICC should not maintain elements of the prior model that would unnecessarily increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits, (6) the proposal to add the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by GCF Repo Transactions collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation, (7) the proposal to amend the Backtesting Charge to consider backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would help to ensure that FICC could cover credit exposure to GCF Counterparties, (8) the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day, and (9) the proposed change to the Excess Capital Premium calculation would help to ensure that FICC does not unnecessarily increase its calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposit amounts for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members.
The proposed changes would continue to be subject to performance reviews by FICC. In the event that FICC's backtesting process reveals that the VaR Charge, Required Fund Deposit amounts and/or the Clearing Fund do not meet FICC's 99% confidence level, FICC would review its margin methodologies and assess whether any changes should be considered. Therefore, FICC believes the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) of the Act cited above. Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes referenced above in the second paragraph of this section (each of which have been described in detail in Item II.(B)I. above) are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) of the Act cited above because the proposed changes would help to ensure that FICC calculates and collects adequate Required Fund Deposit amounts, and that each Netting Member's amount is commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market. Specifically, (1) the proposed change to utilize the sensitivity approach would provide better margin coverage for FICC, (2) the proposed use of the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model, (3) the proposed haircut method would provide a better assessment of the risks associated with classes of securities with inadequate historical pricing data, (4) the proposed VaR Floor would limit FICC's credit exposures to Netting Members in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios, (5) the proposal eliminates the Blackout Period Exposure, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier because FICC should not maintain elements of the prior model that would unnecessarily increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits, (6) the proposal to add the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by GCF Repo Transactions collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation, (7) the proposal to amend the Backtesting Charge to consider backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would help to ensure that FICC could cover credit exposure to GCF Counterparties, (8) the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) cited above because the collective proposed rule changes would consider, and produce margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) of the Act cited above because the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day. Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would provide GSD with the authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls in a manner that is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) of the Act cited above.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) of the Act cited above because the proposed changes are designed to calculate Required Fund Deposit amounts that are sufficient to cover FICC's potential future exposure to Netting Members in the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of positions following a participant default. Specifically, (1) the proposed change to utilize the sensitivity approach would provide better margin coverage for FICC, (2) the proposed use of the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model, (3) the proposed haircut method would provide a better assessment of the risks associated with classes of securities with inadequate historical pricing data, (4) the proposed VaR Floor would limit FICC's credit exposures to Netting Members in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios, (5) the proposal eliminates the Blackout Period Exposure, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier because FICC should not maintain elements of the prior model that would unnecessarily increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits, (6) the proposal to add the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by GCF Repo Transactions collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation, (7) the proposal to amend the Backtesting Charge to consider backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would help to ensure that FICC could cover credit exposure to GCF Counterparties, (8) the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day, and (9) the proposed change to the Excess Capital Premium calculation would help to ensure that FICC does not unnecessarily increase its calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposit amounts for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members.
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed changes would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) of the Act cited above because the proposed rules changes would collectively be designed to help ensure that FICC calculates Required Fund Deposit amounts that are sufficient to cover FICC's potential future exposure to Netting Members in the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of positions following a participant default.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed change to implement a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical information is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) of the Act cited above because the proposed change would allow FICC to use appropriate market data to estimate an appropriate margin at a 99% confidence level, thus helping to ensure that sufficient margin would be calculated for portfolios that contain these securities.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes to implement a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical information is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) of the Act cited above because the haircut method would allow FICC to use appropriate market data to estimate an appropriate margin at a 99% confident level, thus
FICC also believes that its proposal to replace the Blackout Period Exposure Charge with the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) of the Act cited above because the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by portfolios with collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed haircut method and the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) of the Act cited above because the proposed changes appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across products.
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The clearing agency shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance Notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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.
By the Commission.
National Women's Business Council.
Notice of open public meeting.
The Public Meeting teleconference will be held on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held via teleconference.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces the meeting of the National Women's Business Council. The National Women's Business Council conducts research on issues of importance and impact to women entrepreneurs and makes policy recommendations to the SBA, Congress, and the White House on how to improve the business climate for women.
This meeting is the 2nd Quarter meeting for Fiscal Year 2018. The online meeting will provide stakeholders with updates on the Council's research and engagement activities. Time will be reserved at the end for audience participants to address Council Members, directly, with questions, comments, or feedback.
The meeting is open to the public; however advance notice of attendance is requested. To RSVP and confirm attendance, the general public should email
For more information, please visit the National Women's Business Council website at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working Group 79.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working Group 79.
The meeting will be held April 18-19, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: European Aviation Safety Agency, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, D-50668, Köln, Germany.
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 Thirty Eighth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working Group 79. 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. Registration is required for attendance. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fourteenth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fourteenth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary.
The meeting will be held April 4-5, 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.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fourteenth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of Interior (DOI).
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and the USFWS that are final pursuant to the statute. The actions relate to the proposed highway project for a 26-mile segment of Interstate 69 (I-69) in the Counties of Morgan, Johnson, and Marion, State of Indiana, and grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public that the FHWA and the USFWS have made decisions that are subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) and are final within the meaning of that law. A claim seeking judicial review of those Federal agency decisions on the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before July 30, 2018. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then the shorter time period applies.
For the FHWA: Ms. Michelle Allen, Federal Highway Administration, Indiana Division, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 254, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1576; telephone: (317) 226-7344; email:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has approved a Tier 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Section 6 of the I-69 highway project from Evansville to Indianapolis and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for Section 6 on February 1, 2018. Section 6 of the I-69 project extends from SR 39 south of Martinsville and proceeds north for approximately 26 miles to Interstate 465 (I-465) in Indianapolis. As part of the I-69 project, improvements to I-465 will also be made from Mann Road to U.S. Route 31.
The ROD selected the Refined Preferred Alternative for Section 6, as described in the I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana, Tier 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Martinsville to Indianapolis, Indiana (FEIS). The ROD also approved the locations of the interchanges, grade separations, and access roads (which include new roads, road relocations, and realignments). The FHWA had previously issued a Tier 1 FEIS and ROD for the entire I-69 project from Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana. A Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and USFWS, DOI, was published in the
1. Purpose and need for the project.
2. Range of alternatives for analysis.
3. Selection of the Interstate highway build alternative and highway corridor for the project, as Alternative 3C.
4. Elimination of other alternatives from consideration in Tier 2 NEPA proceedings.
5. Process for completing the Tier 2 alternatives analysis and studies for the project, including the designation of six Tier 2 sections and a decision to prepare a separate environmental impact statement for each Tier 2 section.
The Tier 1 ROD and Notice of Limitation on Claims specifically noted that the ultimate alignment of the highway within the corridor and the locations and number of interchanges and rest areas would be decided in the Tier 2 NEPA proceedings. Those proceedings for Section 6 of the I-69 project from Evansville to Indianapolis have culminated in the February 1, 2018, ROD and this Notice. Interested parties may consult the Tier 2, Section 6 ROD and FEIS for details about each of the decisions described above and for information on other issues decided.
The Tier 2, Section 6 ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at
1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]
2. Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544].
3. Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].
4. Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).
5. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
6. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
7. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 688-688d].
Notice is hereby given that, subsequent to the earlier FHWA notices cited above, the USFWS has taken three final agency actions within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing: (1) Conference Opinion for the northern long-eared bat (
Previous actions taken by the USFWS for the Tier 1, I-69 project, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, included its concurrence with the FHWA's determination that the I-69 project was not likely to adversely affect the eastern fanshell mussel (
These USFWS decisions were described in the Programmatic Biological Opinion issued on December 3, 2003, the Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion issued on August 24,
On April 15, 2015, USFWS issued “Amendment 3 To the Tier 1 Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (RPBO dated August 24, 2006, previously amended July 24, 2013, and May 25, 2011) for the I-69, Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana highway.” USFWS issued their Conference Opinion on the northern long-eared bat as Amendment 3 to the RPBO due to the pending listing of the northern long-eared bat under the ESA. The Conference Opinion was adopted as a Biological Opinion on May 4, 2015, upon the effective date of the listing of the northern long-eared bat. The amendment added an exempted level of incidental take for the northern long-eared bat and added terms and conditions associated with the northern long-eared bat along with reasonable and prudent measures to be implemented to protect this species. Based on analysis of the information on the northern long-eared bat, USFWS concluded that while potential incidental take of some individuals may result from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana highway, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern long-eared bat. USFWS did not conduct any new analysis for either the bald eagle or eastern fanshell mussel (
For the Tier 2, Section 6, 26-mile I-69 Project in Morgan, Johnson, and Marion Counties, an individual Biological Opinion was issued on October 30, 2017, which concluded that the Section 6 project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat or the northern long-eared bat. In addition, the USFWS issued an Incidental Take Statement subject to specific terms and conditions. The Biological Opinions and other project records relating to the USFWS actions, taken pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, are available by contacting the FHWA, INDOT, or USFWS at the addresses provided above. The Tier 2, Section 6 Biological Opinion can be viewed in Appendix GG2 in the Section 6 FEIS.
The USFWS concurrence with the FHWA's determination that the I-69 project is not likely to adversely affect the rusty patched bumble bee (
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on the proposed collection of information.
This document describes a proposed collection of information under regulations that pertain to the importation of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment that are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards.
Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0080 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (NEF-230), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
On December 19, 2013, NHTSA submitted to OMB a request for the extension of the agency's approval (assigned OMB Control No. 2127-0002) of the information collection that is incident to NHTSA's administration of the vehicle importation regulations at 49 CFR parts 591, 592, and 593. On April 13, 2014, OMB notified NHTSA that it had approved this extension request through April 30, 2017. That approval was based on NHTSA submissions identifying information being collected on an annual basis from 63,818 respondents, expending 61,882 hours of effort, at a cost of $1,454,120. NHTSA wishes to file with OMB a request for that agency to extend its approval for an additional three years. NHTSA published a prior notice to extend this information collection at 82 FR 901 (January 4, 2017). NHTSA is republishing this notice to account for recent changes in some aspects of the information collection concerning the processing of applications for permission to temporarily import vehicles equipped with automated driving systems for research or demonstration purposes under Box 7 on the HS-7 Declaration form. These are described more fully below.
Since the information collection associated with NHTSA's importation program was last approved by OMB, significant changes have taken place that impact the information collection and the assessment of its burden on affected members of the public. These have resulted, in part, from the increasing strength of the U.S dollar against foreign currencies, particularly the Canadian dollar, which has led to a significant increase in the volume of vehicles imported from Canada. Another factor that has impacted the information collection is the transitioning in the filing of NHTSA-required import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) legacy Automated Commercial System (ACS) to the new Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS). With its integration into ACE, which began on August 1, 2015 and was completed by July 28, 2016, NHTSA is receiving more accurate and complete information on the importation of the commodities it regulates. As a consequence, the volume of entries, in some instances, has greatly increased from the volume received in prior years. For example, the volume of entries for vehicles at least 25 years old that can be imported without regard to their compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and equipment items manufactured prior to the date that any applicable standard has taken effect, both of which are declared under Box 1 on the HS-7 Declaration form, has increased by a factor of nearly two hundred, from roughly 13,000 entries in 2012 to nearly 2.5 million entries in 2015. There has been a 25 percent increase in the volume of vehicles conforming to the FMVSS that are imported under Box 2A, from 5.6 million in 2012 to nearly 7 million in 2015. The volume of vehicles not originally manufactured to the FMVSS that are imported by registered importers under Box 3 has increased more than sevenfold, from roughly 30,000 vehicles in 2012, to over 216,000 vehicles in 2015. More than 99 percent of these vehicles are imported from Canada, whose dollar, as previously indicated, has significantly weakened against the U.S. dollar. Perhaps influenced by the same factors, there has been nearly a doubling in the volume of Canadian-certified vehicles imported by individuals for personal use under Box 2B, from 1,275 in 2012 to nearly 2,400 in 2015. There has been a fourfold increase in the volume of vehicles imported for export only under Box 4, from roughly 20,000 vehicles in 2012 to slightly more than 83,000 in 2015. The volume of nonconforming vehicles temporarily imported for research or demonstration purposes under Box 7 has increased by nearly 25 percent, from 6,000 vehicles in 2012 to 7,319 in 2015. Finally, the volume of vehicles not originally manufactured for use on public roads that are declared as off-road vehicles not subject to the FMVSS under Box 8 has increased by nearly one third, from 326,000 in 2012 to 421,526.
The focus of NHTSA's importation program has traditionally been on vehicles that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS. These vehicles must be imported by a registered importer (RI) under bond to ensure that the vehicles are brought into compliance with applicable standards following importation. Nonconforming vehicles are entered under Box 3 on the HS-7 Declaration form. In calendar year 2002, 212,210 nonconforming vehicles were imported under Box 3. Over 97 percent of those vehicles were imported from Canada. In 2003, after the U.S. dollar began to weaken against the Canadian dollar, the volume of nonconforming vehicle imports under Box 3 was reduced by more than half, to 97,337 vehicles. The trend accelerated over the next five years, with 43,648 vehicles imported under Box 3 in 2004, 12,642 imported in 2005, 10,953 imported in 2006, 7,470 imported in 2007, and 6,311 imported in 2008. After the U.S. dollar had gained some strength against the Canadian dollar, the volume of imports under Box 3 increased to 10,752 vehicles in 2009, and continued to increase to 18,010 vehicles in 2010, 22,733 vehicles in 2011, and 30,138 in 2012. In 2013, 36,292 vehicles were imported under Box 3. With the increasing strength of the U.S. dollar against the Canadian dollar, this figure more than doubled in 2014, when 73,814 vehicles were imported, and then tripled in 2015, when a record 216,814 were imported.
When NHTSA last requested OMB approval for the information collection associated with the vehicle importation program, the agency estimated that 23,600 nonconforming vehicles would be imported on an annual basis under Box 3, for which HS-7 Declaration forms and HS-474 DOT Conformance bonds would have to be furnished. The agency estimated that it would take five minutes to complete each HS-7 Declaration form, and six minutes to complete each HS-474 DOT Conformance bond, for a total expenditure of 4,327 hours to complete these forms. Given the significant rise in nonconforming vehicle imports under Box 3 in recent years, future projections should assume an average of 109,000 vehicle imports per year. Relying on this figure, the hour burden associated with the completion of paperwork for these vehicles would be close to 19,873 hours (0.08333 hours to complete each HS-7 × 109,000 vehicles = 9,083 hours; 0.1 hours to complete each HS-474 × 109,000 vehicles = 10,900 hours; 9,083 + 10,900 = 19,983 hours). This represents nearly a 462 percent increase in burden hours associated with these entries when compared to the figures used when OMB approval was last obtained.
Cumulatively, the changes in the vehicle importation program detailed above have produced more than a four-fold increase in the hour burden associated with all aspects of the program, from an estimated 61,882 hours when OMB approval was last sought in 2013, to an estimated 252,622
In this document, the agency has not focused exclusively on vehicles imported under the RI program, but has instead made a concerted effort to quantify the hour burden associated with the completion of paperwork for vehicles and equipment items imported in any legitimate way under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR parts 591, 592, and 593). As a consequence, we are providing particular information on the paperwork burden associated with the importation of conforming motor vehicles; the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles for personal use by nonresidents and by foreign diplomatic and military personnel; the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles (including vehicles equipped with automated driving systems) for purposes of research, investigations, demonstrations or training, and other similar purposes; the importation of vehicles that are not primarily manufactured for on-road use; and other entry categories permitted under the agency's regulations. In addition, we have attempted to account for all forms, whether required or optional, and other types of information solicitations associated with vehicle and equipment importation that appear on the agency's website and in newsletters and other informational media that we employ to inform RIs and others of our requirements. Accounting for all paperwork burdens in this manner, we project that a total of 252,622 hours will be expended each year to complete paperwork associated with all aspects of NHTSA's program that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and equipment items subject to the FMVSS. As described above, this represents more than a four-fold increase over the 61,882 burden hours that were estimated when OMB approval was last sought in 2013.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(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 is requesting public comment on the following proposed collection of information:
Section 30112(a) of Title 49, U.S. Code prohibits, with certain exceptions, the importation into the United States of a motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) takes effect, unless the motor vehicle was manufactured in compliance with the standard and was so certified by its original manufacturer. Under one of the exceptions to this prohibition, found at 49 U.S.C. 30141, a nonconforming vehicle can be imported into the United States provided (1) NHTSA decides that the vehicle is eligible for importation, based on its capability of being modified to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and (2) it is imported by a registered importer (RI), or by a person who has a contract with an RI to bring the vehicle into conformity with all applicable standards following importation. Regulations implementing this statute are found at 49 CFR parts 591 and 592.
The regulations require a declaration to be filed (on the HS-7 Declaration Form) at the time a vehicle is imported that identifies, among other things, whether the vehicle was originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and if it was not, to state the basis for the importation of the vehicle.
A nonconforming vehicle that NHTSA has decided to be eligible for importation can be imported by an RI, or by a person who has a contract with an RI to modify the vehicle so that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS, under Box 3 on the HS-7 Declaration form. As previously noted, the volume of imports under Box 3 has greatly increased in recent years. In 2013, 36,266 vehicles were imported under Box 3; in 2014, 73,809 vehicles were imported; and in 2015, 216,812 vehicles were imported. Based on these figures, the agency projects that 109,000 vehicles will be imported each year under Box 3. Assuming that volume, the hour burden associated with the completion of the HS-7 Declaration form for these vehicles will be 9,083 hours (0.08333 hours to complete each HS-7 × 109,000 vehicles = 9,083 hours).
NHTSA's regulations also require an RI, among other things, to furnish a bond (on the HS-474 Conformance Bond form) at the time of entry for each nonconforming vehicle it imports, to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformity with all applicable safety and bumper standards within 120 days of entry or will be exported from, or abandoned to, the United States. A HS-474 Conformance Bond has to be furnished for each nonconforming vehicle imported under Box 3. Assuming an importation volume of 109,000 vehicles per year, the hour burden associated with the completion of the HS-474 will be 10,900 hours (0.1 hours to complete each HS-474 × 109,000 vehicles = 10,900 hours).
After modifying the vehicle to conform to all applicable standards, the RI submits a statement of conformity (on a suggested form) to NHTSA, which will then issue a letter permitting the bond to be released if the agency is satisfied that the vehicle has been modified in the manner stated by the RI. The statement of conformity contains a check-off list on which the RI identifies the FMVSS and other agency requirements to which the vehicle conforms as originally manufactured and the FMVSS and other requirements to which the vehicle was modified to conform. The RI also attaches to the statement of conformity documentary and photographic evidence of the modifications that it made to the vehicle to achieve conformity with applicable standards. Collectively, these documents are referred to as a “conformity package.”
A conformity package must be submitted for each nonconforming vehicle imported under Box 3. Because the Canadian motor vehicle safety standards are identical in most respects to the FMVSS, there are relatively few modifications that need to be performed on a Canadian-certified vehicle to conform it to the FMVSS and the conformity packages that are submitted on these vehicles are considerably less comprehensive than those submitted for vehicles from Europe, Japan, and other foreign markets. The agency estimates that it would take the average RI no more than 30 minutes to collect information for, and assemble, a conformity package for a Canadian-certified vehicle.
Generally, more modifications are needed to conform a non-Canadian vehicle to the FMVSS. To properly document these modifications, more information must be included in the conformity package for a non-Canadian vehicle than is required for a Canadian-certified vehicle. The agency estimates that it would take an RI approximately twice as long, or roughly one hour, to compile information for, and assemble,
Of the 36,266 nonconforming vehicles imported under Box 3 in 2013, 35,973, or roughly 99.1 percent, were Canadian market and 293, or roughly 0.9 percent, were from markets other than Canada. Of the 73,809 nonconforming vehicles imported under Box 3 in 2014, 73,467, or roughly 99.5 percent, were Canadian market and 342, or roughly 0.5 percent, were from markets other than Canada. Of the 216,812 nonconforming vehicles imported under Box 3 in 2016, 216,445 or roughly 99.8 percent, were Canadian market and 357, or roughly 0.2 percent, were from markets other than Canada. Assuming this trend continues in future years, the agency estimates the hour burden associated with the submission of conformity packages on Canadian-certified vehicles to be 54,200 hours per year (109,000 vehicles × 99.45 percent or 0.9945 = 108,400 vehicles; 108,400 vehicles × 0.5 hours per vehicle = 54,200 hours). The agency estimates the hour burden associated with the submission of conformity packages for non-Canadian vehicles to be 600 hours per year (109,000 vehicles × .55 percent or 0.0055 = 600 vehicles; 600 vehicles × 1.0 hours per vehicle = 600 hours. Adding these figures yields an estimated burden of 54,800 hours per year for the entire RI industry to compile and submit conformity packages to NHTSA on nonconforming vehicles imported under Box 3 (54,200 hours + 600 hours = 54,800 hours).
As previously noted, a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS cannot be lawfully imported into the United States on a permanent basis unless NHTSA decides that the vehicle is eligible for importation, based on its capability of being modified to conform to those standards. Under 49 U.S.C. 30141, the eligibility decision can be based on the nonconforming vehicle's substantial similarity to a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year that was manufactured for importation into, and sale in the United States, and certified as complying with all applicable FMVSS by its original manufacturer. Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle, the eligibility decision must be predicated on the vehicle having safety features that are capable of being modified to conform to the FMVSS, based on destructive crash test data or such other evidence that the agency may deem adequate. The agency makes import eligibility decisions either on its own initiative, or in response to petitions filed by RIs. Only a small number of RIs (currently about 16 out of the 107 RIs registered with the agency) ever submit import eligibility petitions. Many of these businesses have, over the years, submitted multiple petitions to the agency. The agency estimates that it would take the typical RI that petitions the agency roughly two hours to complete the paperwork associated with the submission of a petition for a vehicle that has a substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, and roughly twice as long, or four hours, to complete the paperwork associated with the submission of a petition for a vehicle that lacks a substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart. In 2013, 28 import eligibility petitions were submitted to the agency. Of these, 20, or 71 percent, were for vehicles with substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts and 8, or 29 percent, were for vehicles for which there were no substantially similar U.S. certified counterparts. In 2014, 10 import eligibility petitions were submitted to the agency. Of these, 9, or 90 percent, were for vehicles with substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts, and 1, or 10 percent, were for vehicles for which there were no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts. In 2015, 15 import eligibility petitions were submitted to the agency. Of these, 14, or 93 percent, were for vehicles with substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts, and 1, or 7 percent, were for vehicles for which there were no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts. Assuming this trend continues in future years, the agency estimates that roughly 18 import eligibility petitions will be submitted each year, 85 percent of which, or 15 petitions, will be for vehicles with substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts, and 15 percent of which, or 3 petitions, will be for vehicles lacking substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts. Based on these figures, the agency estimates that the hour burden for the paperwork associated with the submission of import eligibility petitions to be 42 hours per year (15 petitions × 2 hours per petition = 30 hours; 3 petitions × 4 hours per petition = 12 hours; 30 hours + 12 hours = 42 hours).
In addition, should NHTSA grant an application for permission to import a nonconforming vehicle with ADS for research or demonstration purposes, the agency may attach conditions to its grant of approval. Some of the conditions that would increase the paperwork burden for the importers include reporting requirements and disclosure and/or placarding requirements. For instance, all importers of vehicles equipped or to be equipped with ADS would be required to submit an annual report to NHTSA on the status of all vehicles imported for the research program that identifies, by VIN, all vehicles that remain in the United States, all vehicles removed from service and the reason(s) for their removal, and their disposition. Another condition would require importers to notify NHTSA anytime a vehicle is involved in a crash or other incident, including near misses and difficult edge cases that the ADS could not handle without further modification, and provide copies of all accident reports concerning the occurrence prepared by State or local law enforcement authorities. NHTSA may also apply a condition requiring importers to affix a label to the interior and/or exterior of the vehicle warning prospective and actual occupants that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable FMVSS. The agency estimates that approximately 107 hours will be expended on an annual basis on these activities by all applicants who have been granted permission to import nonconforming vehicles with ADS for research or demonstration purposes. NHTSA estimates that 75 importers will submit annual reports (75 importers × 1 hour to compile and submit each report = 75 hours), that 5 incidents will be reported to NHTSA each year (5
Because of the additional information that must be collected and reviewed, it will normally take NHTSA longer to process a request for permission to import a vehicle with ADS for research or demonstration purposes than it takes the agency to process a request for permission to import a vehicle without such a system. That is especially true whenever permission is sought to operate the vehicle on public roads or in demonstrations involving members of the public. Whereas the agency will normally process a request for permission to import a non-ADS-equipped vehicle in less than one hour, it can take the agency up to ten hours to review and process the information submitted in support of an application to import an ADS-equipped vehicle for research or demonstration purposes. Based on the assumption that 25 applications for permission to import such vehicles will be submitted each year, the agency estimates that it will expend 250 hours in processing these applications (25 applications × 10 hours = 250 hours).
In 2013, a total of 207,112 off-road vehicles and equipment items were imported under Box 8. In 2014, 335,281 off-road vehicles and equipment items were imported under that box. In 2015, 421,546 were imported. Averaging those figures, the agency projects that roughly 321,323 off-road vehicles and equipment items will be imported under Box 8 in each of the next three years. Assuming that volume, the hour burden associated with the completion of the HS-7 Declaration form for these vehicles and equipment items will be 26,776 hours (0.08333 hours to complete each HS-7 × 321,323 entries = 26,776).
Also on the agency's website is an application form that can be used to request NHTSA to permit a particular vehicle to be imported for purposes of show or display once the agency has decided that the vehicle is of a make, model, and model year that is eligible for importation for those purposes. Certain restrictions apply to vehicles that are imported for purposes of show or display. Among those is a requirement that the vehicle not be driven in excess of 2,500 miles per year. The application specifies the terms of the importation and makes provision for the applicant to agree to those terms. In 2013, the agency received 23 applications to import specific vehicles for purposes of show or display. In 2014, the agency received 56 such applications. In 2015, the agency received 25. Averaging those figures, the agency estimates that it will receive roughly 35 applications in each of the next three years. Assuming that it will take the typical applicant up to one hour to compile and assemble the
The latter records are referred to as a “conformity package.” Most conformity packages submitted to the agency covering vehicles imported from Canada are comprised of approximately six sheets of paper (including a check-off sheet identifying the vehicle and the standards that it was originally manufactured to conform to and those that it was modified to conform to, a statement identifying the recall history of the vehicle, a copy of the HS-474 conformance bond covering the vehicle, and a copy of the mandatory service insurance policy obtained by the RI to cover its recall obligations for the vehicle). In addition, most conformity packages include photographs of the vehicle, components that were modified or replaced to conform the vehicle to applicable standards, and the certification labels affixed to the vehicle.
Approximately 120 conformity packages can be stored in a cubic foot of space. Based on projected imports of 109,000 nonconforming vehicles per year, 908.33 cubic feet of space will be needed on an industry-wide basis to store one year's worth of conformity packages. Assuming an annual cost of $20 per cubic foot to store the information, NHTSA estimates the aggregate cost to industry for storing a year's worth of conformity packages to be $18,167 per year.
RIs are also required under 49 CFR 592.6(b) to retain a copy of the HS-7 Declaration Form furnished to Customs at the time of entry for each nonconforming vehicle for which they submit a conformity package to NHTSA. Paper HS-7 Declaration Forms are only filed for a small fraction of the nonconforming vehicles imported into the United States. Customs brokers file entries for most nonconforming vehicles electronically by using the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) system. For example, in Calendar year 2010, 17,645 ABI entries were made for nonconforming vehicles imported into the United States under Box 3, and only 365 paper HS-7 Declaration Forms (representing just two percent of the total) were filed for such vehicles. Because HS-7 Declaration Forms are filed for only a small fraction of the nonconforming vehicles that are imported by RIs, the storage requirement for those records can have no more than a negligible cost impact on the industry. Because the remaining records that RIs are required to retain under 49 CFR 592.6(b) may be stored electronically, the costs incident to the storage of those records should also be negligible.
RIs who conduct recall campaigns to remedy a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with an FMVSS determined to exist in a vehicle they import must report the progress of those campaigns to NHTSA. The agency estimates that it should take each RI that is required to conduct a safety recall campaign approximately one hour to compile information for, and prepare each of the two reports it would be required to submit to the agency detailing the progress of the recall campaign. Since vehicle manufacturers in most cases include vehicles imported by RIs in their own recall campaigns, it is likely that very few of these reports would have to be prepared or submitted by RIs.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the Information—The information collection detailed above is necessary to ensure that motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper and theft prevention standards are lawfully imported into the United States. To be lawfully imported, the vehicle or equipment item must be covered by one of the boxes on the HS-7 Declaration form and the importer must declare, subject to penalty for making false statements, that the vehicle or equipment item is entitled to entry under the conditions specified on the form, including the provision of any supporting information or materials that may be required.
NHTSA relies on the information provided by RIs and applicants for RI status to obtain and renew their registrations so that it can better ensure that RIs are meeting their obligations under the statutes and regulations governing the importation of nonconforming vehicles and can make more informed decisions in conferring RI status on applicants and in permitting RI status to be retained by those currently holding registrations. In this manner, those lacking the capability to responsibly provide RI services, or who have committed or are associated with those who have committed past violations of the vehicle importation laws, can be more readily denied registration as an RI, or if they already hold such a registration, have that registration suspended or revoked when circumstances warrant such action.
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number and Proposed Frequency of Responses to the Collection of Information)—With regard to the HS-7 Declaration form, likely respondents include any private individual or commercial entity importing into the United States a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is difficult to estimate, with reliability, the absolute number of such respondents; however, that number would include:
• The 107 RIs who are currently registered with NHTSA and import nonconforming vehicles under Boxes 3 and 13;
• the roughly 1,629 individuals who import each year Canadian-certified vehicles for personal use under Box 2B;
• the several hundred original manufacturers who import conforming motor vehicles and equipment items under Box 2A; nonconforming vehicles or equipment intended for export under Box 4; nonconforming vehicles and equipment on a temporary basis for purposes of research, investigations, or other reasons specified under Box 7; vehicles and equipment requiring further manufacturing operations under Box 9; and equipment subject to the
• the several hundred dealers, distributors, and individuals who import off-road vehicles such as dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles or ATVs, as well as other vehicles that are not primarily manufactured for on-road use under Box 8.
• the several hundred nonresidents of the United States and foreign diplomatic and military personnel who temporarily import nonconforming vehicles for personal use under Boxes 5, 6, and 12.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden of the Collection of Information—Adding together the burden hours detailed above yields a total of 252,622 hours expended on an annual basis for all paperwork associated with the filing of the HS-7 Declaration form and other aspects of the vehicle importation program.
Estimate of the Total Annual Costs of the Collection of Information—Other than the cost of the burden hours, the only additional costs associated with this information collection are the $18,167 cost to the industry, per year for the storage of records pertaining to the nonconforming vehicles that each RI imports into the United States and the $60 expense for importers of nonconforming vehicles with automated driving systems temporarily imported for research or demonstration purposes to procure placards advising riders that the vehicles do not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8(f).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that model year (MY) 2007 Jeep Wrangler Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPV) manufactured before September 1, 2007, that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, specifically the U.S.-certified version of the 2007 Jeep Wrangler MPV manufactured before September 1, 2007, and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is April 2, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202 366 5308).
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified MY 2007 Jeep Wrangler MPV manufactured before September 1, 2007 to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
WETL submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified MY 2007 Jeep Wrangler MPV manufactured before September 1, 2007, as originally manufactured, conform to many applicable FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S.-certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non U.S.-certified MY 2007 Jeep Wrangler MPV manufactured before September 1, 2007, as originally manufactured, conforms to the following standards: FMVSS Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the subject non-U.S. certified vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standard, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 110
The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield pillar to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565, and that a Registered Importer Certification Label must be affixed to the vehicle in the driver's side door jamb to satisfy the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC); DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting via conference call of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board.
The public meeting will be held on (all times Eastern):
• Monday, March 19, 2018 from 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held via conference call at the SLSDC's Policy Headquarters, 55 M Street SE, Suite 930, Washington, DC 20003.
Wayne Williams, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). The agenda for this meeting will be as follows:
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact the person listed in the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Department of the Treasury.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The OCC announces a meeting of the Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee (MSAAC).
A public meeting of the MSAAC will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The OCC will hold the March 21, 2018 meeting of the MSAAC at the OCC's offices at 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Michael R. Brickman, Deputy Comptroller for Thrift Supervision, (202) 649-5420, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC 20219.
By this notice, the OCC is announcing that the MSAAC will convene a meeting on Wednesday, March 21, 2018, at the OCC's offices at 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. The meeting is open to the public and will begin at 8:30 a.m. EDT. The purpose of the meeting is for the MSAAC to advise the OCC on regulatory or other changes the OCC may make to ensure the health and viability of mutual savings associations. The agenda includes a discussion of current topics of interest to the industry.
Members of the public may submit written statements to the MSAAC. The OCC must receive written statements no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, March 14, 2018. Members of the public may submit written statements to
Members of the public who plan to attend the meeting should contact the OCC by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, to inform the OCC of their desire to attend the meeting and to provide information that will be required to facilitate entry into the meeting. Members of the public may contact the OCC via email at
Attendees should provide their full name, email address, and organization, if any. For security reasons, attendees will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid government-issued identification to enter the building.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons, and these vessels, are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On February 23, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons, and the following vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. CHONMYONG SHIPPING CO (a.k.a. CHON MYONG SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED), Kalrimgil 2-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Saemaul 2-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5571322 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13810 of September
2. FIRST OIL JV CO LTD, Jongbaek 1-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5963351 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
3. HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP, Kumsong 3-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5787684 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
4. KOREA ACHIM SHIPPING CO, Sochang-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5936312 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
5. KOREA ANSAN SHIPPING COMPANY (a.k.a. KOREA ANSAN SHPG CO), Pyongchon 1-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5676084 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
6. KOREA MYONGDOK SHIPPING CO, Chilgol 2-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5985863 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
7. KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO, Tonghung-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5954061 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
8. KOREA SAMMA SHPG CO (a.k.a. KOREA SAMMA SHIPPING CO), Rakrang 3-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5145892 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
9. KOREA UNPHA SHIPPING & TRADING (a.k.a. KOREA UNPHA SHIPPING AND TRADING), Puksong-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 6005935 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
10. KOREA YUJONG SHIPPING CO LTD, Puksong 2-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5434358 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
11. MYOHYANG SHIPPING CO, Kumsong 3-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5988369 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
12. PAEKMA SHIPPING CO, Care of First Oil JV Co Ltd, Jongbaek 1-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5999479 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
13. PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE (a.k.a. PHYONGCHON SHIPPING AND MARINE), Otan-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5878561 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
14. POCHON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT (a.k.a. POCHON SHIPPING AND MANAGEMENT), Sonnae-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5990271 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
15. SONGWON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT (a.k.a. SONGWON SHIPPING AND MANAGEMENT), Somun-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5990268 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
16. TONGHUNG SHIPPING & TRADING CO (a.k.a. TONGHUNG SHIPPING AND TRADING CO), Kinmaul-dong, Moranbong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 1991835 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
17. KINGLY WON INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., Marshall Islands; Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro MH 96960, Marshall Islands; Taiwan; 8th Floor, Number 466, Section 2, Neihu Road, Taipei, Taiwan; Commercial Registry Number 90132 (Marshall Islands) [DPRK3] (Linked To: TSANG, Yung Yuan).
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(viii) of E.O. 13722 for being owned or controlled by TSANG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13722.
18. PRO-GAIN GROUP CORPORATION, 8th Floor, Number 466, Section 2, Neihu Road, Taipei, Taiwan; Le Sanalele Complex, Ground Floor, Vaea Street, Saleufi, Apia, Samoa; Taiwan; Samoa [DPRK3] (Linked To: TSANG, Yung Yuan).
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(viii) of E.O. 13722 for being owned or controlled by TSANG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13722.
23. KOTI CORP, Panama City, Panama; Company Number IMO 5982254 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13810 for having engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology.
24. SHANGHAI DONGFENG SHPG CO LTD, Room 601, 433, Chifeng Lu, Hongkou Qu, Shanghai 200083, China; Company Number IMO 5721069 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13810 for having engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology.
26. WEIHAI WORLD-SHIPPING FREIGHT, 419-201, Tongyi Lu, Huancui Qu, Weihai, Shandong 264200, China; Company Number IMO 5905801 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13810 for having engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology.
27. YUK TUNG ENERGY PTE LTD, 17-22, UOB Plaza 2, Raffles Place 048624, Singapore; Company Number IMO 5987860 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13810 for having engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(v) of E.O. 13810 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, KOREA KUMBYOL TRADING COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810.
1. AN SAN 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7303803 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA ANSAN SHIPPING COMPANY).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA ANSAN SHIPPING COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
2. CHON MA SAN Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8660313 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA ACHIM SHIPPING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA ACHIM SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
3. CHON MYONG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8712362 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: CHONMYONG SHIPPING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which CHONMYONG SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
4. HAP JANG GANG 6 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9066540 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
5. JI SONG 6 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8898740 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
6. JI SONG 8 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8503228 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
7. KUM GANG 3 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8966535 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA UNPHA SHIPPING & TRADING).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA UNPHA SHIPPING & TRADING, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
8. NAM SAN 8 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8122347 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
9. PAEK MA Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9066978 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PAEKMA SHIPPING CO; Linked To: FIRST OIL JV CO LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which PAEKMA SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
10. PO CHON Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8848276 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: POCHON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which POCHON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
11. SAM JONG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8405311 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
12. SAM JONG 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7408873 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
13. SAM MA 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8106496 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA SAMMA SHPG CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA SAMMA SHPG CO, a person whose property and
14. SONG WON Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8613360 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SONGWON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which SONGWON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
15. TONG HUNG 5 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8151415 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: TONGHUNG SHIPPING & TRADING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which TONGHUNG SHIPPING & TRADING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest
16. WOORY STAR Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8408595 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
17. YU JONG 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8604917 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA YUJONG SHIPPING CO LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA YUJONG SHIPPING CO LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
18. YU PHYONG 5 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8605026 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA MYONGDOK SHIPPING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA MYONGDOK SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
19. YU SON Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8691702 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: MYOHYANG SHIPPING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which MYOHYANG SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
20. ASIA BRIDGE 1 8,015DWT; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8916580 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HUAXIN SHIPPING HONGKONG LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which HUAXIN SHIPPING HONGKONG LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
21. DONG FENG 6 5,515DWT Tanzania flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9008201 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SHANGHAI DONGFENG SHPG CO LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which SHANGHAI DONGFENG SHPG CO LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
22. HAO FAN 2 11,658DWT; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8747604 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SHEN ZHONG INTERNATIONAL SHPG).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which SHEN ZHONG INTERNATIONAL SHPG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
23. HAO FAN 6 13,500DWT; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8628597 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SHEN ZHONG INTERNATIONAL SHPG).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which SHEN ZHONG INTERNATIONAL SHPG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
24. HUA FU 10,030DWT Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9020003 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: CHANG AN SHIPPING & TECHNOLOGY).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which CHANG AN SHIPPING & TECHNOLOGY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
25. KOTI Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9417115 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOTI CORP).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOTI CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
26. ORIENTAL TREASURE 9,038DWT Comoros flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9115028 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HONGXIANG MARINE HONG KONG LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which HONGXIANG MARINE HONG KONG LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
27. XIN GUANG HAI 7,067DWT; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9004700 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: WEIHAI WORLD-SHIPPING FREIGHT).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which WEIHAI WORLD-SHIPPING FREIGHT, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
28. YUK TUNG; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9030591 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUK TUNG ENERGY PTE LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which YUK TUNG ENERGY PTE LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons and these vessels are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On February 26, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons and the following vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. DEBONO, Darren, 3 Saint Joseph, Saint Anthony Street, San Gwann, Malta; 22 Mensija St., San Gwann, Malta; DOB 09 Jan 1974; nationality Malta; citizen Malta; Gender Male; Passport 1071341 (Malta); National ID No. 049474M (Malta) (individual) [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of Executive Order 13726 of April 19, 2016, “Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into the United States of Persons Contributing to the Situation in Libya” (E.O. 13726) for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
2. DEBONO, Gordon, 18, Drive 41, Tumas Galea Street Ta'Paris, Birkirkara, Malta; DOB 07 May 1974; POB Malta; nationality Malta; Gender Male; Passport 354841 (Malta); National ID No. 234574M (Malta) (individual) [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
3. BEN KHALIFA, Fahmi (a.k.a. AL IDRISI, Fehmi Abu Zaid Salem; a.k.a. BEN KHALIFA, Fahmi Mousa Saleem; a.k.a. BIN KHALIFA, Fahmi; a.k.a. SALEM, al Idrisi Fehmi Abu Zaid; a.k.a. “Fahmi Slim”; a.k.a. “King of Zawarah”), Sarage El Islam, Tripoli, Libya; Zuwarah, Libya; DOB 02 Jan 1972; nationality Libya; Gender Male; National ID No. 560147C (Libya) (individual) [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
4. ARAFA, Ahmed Ibrahim Hassan Ahmed (a.k.a. ARAFA, Ahmed; ARAFA, Ahmed Ibrahim Hassab; a.k.a. ARAFA, Ahmed Ibrahim Hassan; a.k.a. SELEM, Ahmed Conami), 22 Mensija Street, San Gwann, Malta; 8, Simoha, Alexandria, Egypt; DOB 04 Jan 1976; POB Egypt; nationality Egypt; citizen Egypt; alt. citizen Malta; Gender Male; National ID No. 46447A (Malta) (individual) [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
5. GRECH, Rodrick (a.k.a. GRECH, Roderick), Semper Grove, F1 3A, Triq il-Qala, Qala—Gozo, Malta; DOB 12 Aug 1981; nationality Malta; citizen Malta; Gender Male; Passport 1172183 (Malta); National ID No. 0476781M (Malta) (individual) [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
6. MICALLEF, Terence (a.k.a. MICALLEF, Terrence), 31 Fawwara Ct. Flat 3, Turu Rizzo St., Gzira, Malta; DOB 25 Jan 1985; POB Malta; nationality Malta; citizen Malta; Gender Male; Passport 1018185 (Malta) issued 01 Sep 2011; National ID No. 087385M (Malta) (individual) [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
1. SEABRASS LIMITED, Level 8/5B, Portomaso Business Tower, St. Julians, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-400-4431; Trade License No. C 76394 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
2. TARA LIMITED, Level 8/5B, Portomaso Business Tower, St. Julians, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-400-4252; Trade License No. C 76396 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
3. KRAKERN LIMITED, Level 8/5B Portomaso Business Tower, St. Julians, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-400-4559; Trade License No. C 76398 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
4. ADJ TRADING LIMITED (f.k.a. ADJ SWORDFISH LIMITED; a.k.a. ADJ TRADING), 22 Mensjia Street, San Gwann SGN 1608, Malta; PO Box 105, 1045, Majuro, Marshall Islands; D-U-N-S Number 52-023-7366; Tax ID No. 18589120 (Malta); Trade License No. C 41310 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Darren; Linked To: ARAFA, Ahmed Ibrahim Hassan Ahmed; Linked To: BEN KHALIFA, Fahmi).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
Also designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) for being owned or controlled by Darren Debono, Ahmed Ibrahim Hassan Ahmed Arafa, and Fahmi Ben Khalifa, persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
5. MALTA DIRECTORIES LTD., The Business Centre, Valley Road, Msida MSD 9060, Malta; Oakdene Mediatrix Place, Zabbar, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-499-4520; V.A.T. Number MT15561628 (Malta); Tax ID No. 15561628 (Malta); Trade License No. C 25186 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
6. PETROPARK S.R.L., Via Giovanni Lavaggi 152, Augusta (Siracusa) 96011, Italy; Via Unione Sovietica 4, Siracusa 96100, Italy; D-U-N-S Number 33-843-5672; V.A.T. Number IT08497661002 (Italy); Tax ID No. 08497661002 (Italy); Trade License No. SR 140256 (Italy) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
7. HI-LOW PROPERTIES LTD., The Business Centre, Valley Road, Msida MSD 9060, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-024-2258; Trade License No. C 38094 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
8. MR HANDYMAN LTD, The Business Centre, Valley Road, Msida MSD 9060, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 36-025-1842; V.A.T. Number MT16905829 (Malta); Tax ID No. 16905829 (Malta); Trade License No. C 32519 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
9. S-CAPE YACHT CHARTER LIMITED, Level 8/5B Portomaso Business Tower, St. Julians, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-400-5656; V.A.T. Number MT23786021 (Malta); Tax ID No. 23786021 (Malta); Trade License No. C 77444 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
10. S-CAPE LIMITED, Level 8, Office 5B Portomaso Business Tower, St. Julians STJ4011, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-400-5153; Trade License No. C 77446 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
11. OCEANO BLU TRADING LIMITED (f.k.a. PESCA MEDITERRANEA LIMITED), Flat 2, Merill Court, Fuxa Street, San Gwann SGN 1308, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-023-2342; V.A.T. Number MT21195831 (Malta); Tax ID No. 21195831 (Malta); Trade License No. C 58157 (Malta) [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
12. ELEVEN EIGHTY EIGHT LIMITED (f.k.a. PAR EXCELLENCE LIMITED), 18, Drive 41, Tumas Galea Street, Ta' Paris, Birkirkara BKR 04, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-028-0154; V.A.T. Number MT14324830 (Malta); Tax ID No. 14324830 (Malta); Trade License No. C 19763 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
13. MARIE DE LOURDES COMPANY LIMITED, 22 Mensija Street, San Gwann SGN 1432, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-023-7373; Tax ID No. 21195703 (Malta); Trade License No. C 58194 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Darren).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Darren Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
14. WORLD WATER FISHERIES LIMITED (f.k.a. IL-BRAZZOL), 10 Quarry Garage, Gharghur, Malta; 22 Mensija Road, San Gwann SGN 1432, Malta; 6/13, Ibragg road, Tal-Balal, Swieqi, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 56-558-7594; V.A.T. Number MT15388917 (Malta); Trade License No. C 24129 (Malta); Company Number 4220856 [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Darren).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Darren Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
15. GORGE LIMITED, Level 8/5B, Portomaso Business Tower, St. Julians, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-400-4151; Trade License No. C 76400 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
16. ANDREA MARTINA LIMITED, 22 Mensija Road, San Gwann SGN 1608, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-024-7549; Tax ID No. 18589029 (Malta); Trade License No. C 41309 (Malta); Company Number 5886249 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Darren).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Darren Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
17. PETROPLUS LTD (a.k.a. PETRO PLUS LIMITED; f.k.a. TIKO TIKO LTD.), Office 5B, Level 8, Portomaso Business Tower, Portomaso Avenue, St. Julians STJ 4011, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-024-2307; V.A.T. Number MT20084637 (Malta); Tax ID No. 20084637 (Malta); Trade License No. C 50905 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
18. SCOGLITTI RESTAURANT, 8, Boat Street Marsamxett, Valletta, Malta; website
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Darren Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
19. THE BUSINESS CENTRE LTD. (a.k.a. THE BUSINESS CENTRE LIMITED), The Business Centre, Valley Road, Msida MSD 9060, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 56-556-9269; V.A.T. Number MT11366525 (Malta); Tax ID No. 11366525 (Malta); Trade License No. C 17918 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
20. INOVEST LIMITED (f.k.a. LEISURE HOLIDAYS LIMITED), 18, Drive 41, Tumas Galea Street, Ta'Paris, Birkirkara BKR 04, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-023-9744; V.A.T. Number MT14324921 (Malta); Tax ID No. 14324921 (Malta); Trade License No. C 19766 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being
21. TIUBODA OIL AND GAS SERVICES (a.k.a. TIUBODA OIL AND GAS SERVICES LLC; a.k.a. TIUBODA OIL SERVICES LIMITED), Al Nasr Street, Tarabulus, Tripoli 82874, Libya; Tax ID No. 18571; Trade License No. 41992 (Libya); License 4541992 [LIBYA3].
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(iv) of E.O. 13726 for being involved in, or having been involved in, the illicit exploitation of crude oil or any other natural resources in Libya, including the illicit production, refining, brokering, sale, purchase, or export of Libyan oil.
22. KB LINES LIMITED (a.k.a. KB LINES LTD.), Office 5B, Level 8, Portomaso Tower, St. Julians STJ 4011, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-400-0843; V.A.T. Number MT23058705 (Malta); Tax ID No. 23058705 (Malta); Trade License No. C 73647 (Malta); Company Number 5905876 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
23. MOTORCYCLE ART LTD., 18 Drive 41, Thomas Galea Street, Ta' Paris, Birkirkara, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 52-024-7665; V.A.T. Number MT18975718 (Malta); Tax ID No. 18975718 (Malta); Trade License No. C 44063 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
24. KB INVESTMENTS LIMITED, Office 5B, Level 8, Portomaso Business Tower, Portomaso Avenue, St Julians STJ 4011, Malta; D-U-N-S Number 53-399-9713; Trade License No. C 72745 (Malta) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: DEBONO, Gordon).
Designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(i)(D)(vii) of E.O. 13726 for being owned or controlled by Gordon Debono, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726.
1. PROGRES (a.k.a. OZEL 2) (9HB4398) Malta flag; Other Vessel Flag Tanzania; alt. Other Vessel Flag Trinidad and Tobago; Other Vessel Call Sign 5IM713; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8023670 (vessel) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: ANDREA MARTINA LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13726 as property in which ANDREA MARTINA LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726, has an interest.
2. BONU 5; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 15411 (vessel) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: ANDREA MARTINA LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13726 as property in which ANDREA MARTINA LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726, has an interest.
3. MARIE DE LOURDES (9HB3103) Malta flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8688171; MMSI 249000882 (vessel) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: WORLD WATER FISHERIES LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13726 as property in which WORLD WATER FISHERIES LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726, has an interest.
4. MARIE DE LOURDES I (9HB3737) Malta flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8688183; MMSI 248000368 (vessel) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: WORLD WATER FISHERIES LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13726 as property in which WORLD WATER FISHERIES LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726, has an interest.
5. MARIE DE LOURDES V (a.k.a. MDL 5) (9HB5604) Malta flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9809277; MMSI 215000818 (vessel) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: WORLD WATER FISHERIES LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13726 as property in which WORLD WATER FISHERIES LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726, has an interest.
6. ZEUS (9H5319) Malta flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 04714 (vessel) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: ANDREA MARTINA LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13726 as property in which ANDREA MARTINA LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726, has an interest.
7. THEODOROS; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 6421660 (vessel) [LIBYA3] (Linked To: ADJ TRADING LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13726 as property in which ADJ TRADING LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13726, has an interest.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting; Change.
In the
The meeting will be held Monday, March 19, 2018 and Tuesday, March 20, 2018.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Monday, March 19, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time and Tuesday, March 20, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Central Time at the IRS Office in Houston, Texas. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning performance and quality for small wind energy property.
Written comments should be received on or before May 1, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, March 22, 2018 and Friday, March 23, 2018.
Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be held Thursday, March 22, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time and Friday, March 23, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Central Time at the IRS Office in Houston, Texas. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Gilbert Martinez. For more information please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 3651 S. IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:
(a) The title is revised to read as follows: “President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition.”
(b) The preamble is revised to replace the phrase, “President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports” with “President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition.”
(c) Sections 1 through 5 are revised to read as follows:
(b) The Council shall be composed of up to 30 members recommended by the Secretary and appointed by the President. Members shall serve for a term of 2 years, shall be eligible for reappointment, and may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the appointment of a successor. The President may designate one or more of the members as Chair or Vice Chair.
(b) The Council shall recommend to the Secretary actions to expand opportunities at the national, State, and local levels for participation in sports and engagement in physical fitness and activity.
(c) The Council's performance of these functions shall take into account the Department of Health and Human Services' Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, including consideration for youth with disabilities.
(b) The members of the Council shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council. Members of the Council may, however, receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
(c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary shall furnish the Council with necessary staff, supplies, facilities, and other administrative services. The expenses of the Council shall be paid from funds available to the Secretary.
(d) The Secretary shall appoint an Executive Director of the Council who shall serve as a liaison to the Secretary and the Advisor to the President on matters and activities pertaining to the Council.
(e) The Council may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish subcommittees as appropriate to aid in its work.
(f) The seal prescribed by Executive Order 10830 of July 24, 1959, as amended, shall be modified to reflect the name of the Council as established by this order.”
(d) Section 5 is relabeled as Section 6 and amended as follows:
(a) A new subsection (d) is added to read: “Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(b) A new subsection (e) is added to read: “This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”
(c) A new subsection (f) is added to read: “This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”
Department of Education.
Final priorities and definitions.
In order to support and strengthen the work that educators do every day in collaboration with parents, advocates, and community members, the Secretary issues 11 priorities and related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. These priorities and definitions replace the supplemental priorities published in the
These priorities and definitions are applicable April 2, 2018.
Leticia Braga, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6W231, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-0831 or by email:
Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program that is using one or more of the final priorities in its competition. Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small entities.
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
We published a notice of proposed supplemental priorities and definitions (NPP) in the
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priorities and definitions (NFP) as discussed in the
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities or definitions.
Overall, we view high levels of parent satisfaction as a key benefit of school choice options such as private school vouchers. As discussed in the NPP, research shows high satisfaction levels among private school parents, with more than 80 percent of parents saying they were “very satisfied” with their children's school. Parents of children at public charter schools and other public schools of choice also showed levels of satisfaction that were significantly higher than parents whose children attend geographically assigned district schools.
We note that evidence suggests that some charter school models might be more effective at improving math and reading scores for low-income or low-achieving students. For example, a rigorous, random assignment study funded by the Department's Institute of Education Sciences found that the study's charter middle schools that are in urban areas and serve high proportions of low-income or low-achieving students had positive effects on middle school students' math test scores.
Furthermore, studies of voucher programs in some districts have shown small positive or null effects in reading or large effects on high school graduation or postsecondary outcomes for subgroups of students and mixed effects in math.
A recent analysis of a specific set of voucher programs found that they can be a cost-effective use of public funding for education. The study found that private school voucher programs were generally at least as effective as traditional public schools at improving math and reading scores and cost the government less.
The Department is committed to building the evidence base for school choice models further, and these priorities are intended to support this important work.
Some commenters asked that we expand references to “teachers and principals” to include individuals in the early childhood workforce who impact the outcomes of our youth, including administrators and service coordinators (among others).
Additionally, commenters asked that “early learning” be an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority in all Department discretionary grant competitions.
One commenter requested that we revise the priorities to emphasize the critical role that families play in child, policy, and systems development, and recommended specific revisions that would reference the early childhood population.
The final language in Priority 1 subpart (b)(xv) specifically focuses on early learning. Subpart (d) of Priority 9 includes projects that address, “Increasing the number of children who enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life by supporting families and communities to help more children obtain the knowledge and skills to be prepared developmentally.”
We agree with the commenters who requested that we recognize, and include language to emphasize, early learning. While we do not think it is necessary to establish a separate priority for early childhood, we are making specific edits to include the term “children or students” in some of the priorities, as well as in the definition of “educational choice,” to clarify that the priorities and this definition may be used in grant programs that serve the early childhood population.
Furthermore, throughout the priorities, we generally use the term “educators,” which we believe includes early childhood service providers and other school personnel. Similarly, we believe that the term “education” encompasses early learning and does not preclude the use of the priorities referencing education in discretionary programs that serve the early childhood population, as appropriate. Lastly, we decline to revise the definition of “high-poverty school” as we believe that it adequately captures the intended populations within priorities where such terms are used.
While these commenters generally requested that libraries be recognized throughout the priorities for the value they bring to education, one commenter requested specifically that public libraries be included as eligible entities or allowable partners, as applicable, across the priorities.
We further believe that the priorities offer the flexibility for applicants to address UDL and similar strategies in their grant applications. While specific strategies such as UDL are not listed, the priorities include multiple references to the importance of effective strategies and evidence-based practices. There is nothing in any of the priorities that would prohibit the use of UDL, so long as projects address the requirements of the priorities. For these reasons, it is not necessary to revise the priorities to provide explicit references to the strategy.
We appreciate views of the commenter who suggested we include a specific focus on urban local educational agencies (LEAs). As we discussed in the NPP, our focus on students who are served by rural LEAs is in acknowledgment of the fact that rural students and communities have unique needs that are not always adequately addressed. For these reasons, we decline to remove this focus or revise it to require a focus on students served by rural and urban LEAs and believe the priorities as a whole sufficiently encompass all students.
Specifically, commenters emphasized: The role of States, LEAs, and parents in making decisions regarding choice; ensuring quality educational choices; and referencing specific groups of students, such as rural students, English learners, migratory children, low-skilled adults, and homeless students, or types of options, such as dual enrollment,
We agree with commenters that this priority can be used to focus on the needs of different groups of students, and the priority is designed to allow the Department to determine which group or groups should be the focus of educational choice for a given grant competition that uses this priority.
The definition of “educational choice” provides significant flexibility, and was structured in this way in order to clarify our intent that families and individuals should be able to select the most appropriate educational option to meet their needs. Therefore, we do not require nor endorse any one option over others, including by distinguishing between public versus private options, or options in elementary, secondary, or postsecondary settings. Likewise, we do not believe that it is appropriate to identify specific Department programs in the priority as those could change over time and to ensure maximum flexibility for applicants in responding to this priority.
It is important to note that with this priority the Department seeks to maximize the availability of high-quality learning opportunities, and that private schools, as well as public schools, are available options listed in the definition of “educational choice.” While a number of commenters referenced vouchers, neither the priority nor the definition of “educational choice” explicitly mentions vouchers.
We share commenters' support for transparency and accountability for results and believe all schools—public and private—should be held to high standards. It is important to note that the definition of “educational choice” referenced in this priority requires that opportunities be consistent with applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
Regarding the impact on particular groups of students, this priority also is designed to increase access to educational choice for a wide range of students, including traditionally disadvantaged groups the Department serves in accordance with its mission. It is important to note that this priority will be used to complement the applicable program statute and will not replace statutory requirements under the ESEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or other laws, and must be consistent with all applicable Federal and State laws. This priority only applies to discretionary grant programs and does not impact formula grant funds, which continue to be a significant focus for the Department. Thus, this priority cannot be used in formula grant programs, such as Title I, Part B of the IDEA, or Impact Aid.
We appreciate commenters' concerns regarding the impact of the priority on rural students. The priority emphasizes offering access to educational choice for rural students; this group of students is listed under subpart (b) of the priority. We believe use of this priority will encourage applicants to propose projects that offer rural families an alternative educational opportunity that does not exist in many rural areas, and it will empower families and individuals to choose which school option is best equipped to meet their unique needs.
Likewise, commenters raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposed priority on children with disabilities. This group of students is also specifically identified and listed under subpart (b) of the priority. As noted above, this priority only applies to discretionary grant programs and does not impact formula grant programs.
We also appreciate the concerns of multiple commenters about the potential for this priority to increase segregation in schools. The priority can be used to reach all students or to specifically target a group or groups of students, including students living in poverty, students who are American Indian or Alaska Native, and military- or veteran-connected students. Moreover, while this priority can be used for a wide range of programs beyond vouchers, research suggests it is possible for a voucher program either to not change or to reduce racial segregation in public schools. A 2016 study
Lastly, as with all programs, grant applicants must carry out their grant in accordance with State, Tribal, and Federal laws and regulations. We expect the flexibility built into this priority will allow grantees to take advantage of their unique local practices while empowering State and local educators and families with the necessary information to make the right decisions for their children.
Charter schools provide enhanced parental choice and, while they have additional flexibility with regard to certain requirements in order to foster innovation and reduce burden on schools, they must still follow relevant State and Federal statutes and regulations. For example, charter schools must adhere to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, and age; and ensure equal access for all students, including students with disabilities and English learners. Charter schools may, in some cases, consider additional recruitment efforts targeted toward groups that might otherwise have limited opportunities to participate in charter school programs. The decision of whether to approve, renew, or terminate a charter school contract is
For a summary of charter school performance, see earlier discussion.
With respect to Charter Schools Program discretionary grant competitions, like all competitions, the priorities we use would work within the framework of the authorizing statutes and purposes of the program. The major purposes of the Charter Schools Program are to expand opportunities for all students, particularly traditionally underserved students, to attend charter schools and meet challenging State academic standards; provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of public charter schools; increase the number of high-quality charter schools available to students; evaluate the impact of charter schools on student achievement, families, and communities; share best practices between charter schools and other public schools; encourage States to provide facilities support to charter schools; and support efforts to strengthen the charter school authorizing process.
We do not think amending the priority to limit its scope to registered apprenticeships is merited. We also do not agree that excluding registered apprenticeships from the priority is merited. While the differences between registered and unregistered apprenticeships provide drawbacks and benefits to each, we believe the greatest benefits can be achieved by allowing flexibility for both.
We note that the quality and other merits of proposed projects that address this priority will be assessed by peer reviewers using general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 and criteria developed under 34 CFR 75.209. For example, 34 CFR 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design) includes factors that ask applicants to describe the extent to which the proposed project is supported by evidence and the extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority.
“The term `recognized postsecondary credential' means a credential consisting of an industry-recognized certificate or certification, a certificate of completion of an apprenticeship, a license recognized by the State involved or Federal Government, or an associate or baccalaureate degree.”
As a result, we do not believe that any changes are necessary to address this concern.
With regard to “early learning,” please see the discussion on this topic under the “General” response subheading. We have modified some of the priorities, including Priority 4, by adding “children and students” to make explicit that certain priorities may be used to serve the early childhood population. For the “cultural diversity” comments, we believe reaching certain subgroups of students would in some cases be allowable in these programs, especially in programs where such a focus is included in authorizing statutes. With respect to “partnerships,” we agree that partnerships provide opportunities to leverage resources to increase either a project's effectiveness or its ability to reach more students. However, we do not believe it is necessary to add a reference to “partnerships” in Priority 4 because the priority does not preclude the use of partnerships. As for the other various requested additions, we believe that many of the other suggested additions represent allowable uses and do not require a specific mention. We therefore decline to make these changes.
With regard to accountability, while the IDEA gives States and school districts no regulatory authority over private schools, States and school districts must implement all of the IDEA requirements applicable to parentally placed private school children with disabilities and to children with disabilities who are parentally placed in private schools participating in voucher programs. The IDEA Parent Training and Information Centers are available to provide information and training to parents who have enrolled their children in private schools.
Regarding the request to focus on professional learning to address the needs of English learners, we note professional development and preparation of teachers and school staff are addressed under Priorities 7 and 8. The term “educators” in these priorities encompasses all educators, including those of students who are English learners. Therefore, we do not believe additional language under this priority is necessary. As for the request to add additional subgroups, including English Learners, to this priority, we decline to make this change since some programs or projects will allow a specific focus on one of the populations suggested above, and others would not exclude these populations from consideration, when such a focus aligns with the aims of a particular discretionary grant program.
Finally, we believe that the language of subpart (b) encompasses accessible technology. Specifically, the text of subpart (b) indicates that projects under this priority would ensure “coursework, books, or other materials are accessible to students who are children with disabilities,” where “other materials” encompasses technology.
With respect to adult students, the priority does not preclude grant applicants who propose to focus on adults, and subpart (k) specifically indicates support for programs that lead to recognized postsecondary credentials through WIOA. The priority also explicitly notes the need for support of women, as well as the need to support students in rural communities, highlighting that student population in both subparts (d) and (h). With respect to gifted and talented students, we note that subpart (c) under Priority 5 focuses solely on addressing the needs of gifted and talented students. Regarding the concern that referencing one subgroup may detract from a focus on the needs of other subgroups, we believe that the priorities should provide maximum flexibility for grant applicants to address the needs of students in their particular contexts. Most importantly, this priority emphasizes the needs of underserved students.
We do recognize the need to emphasize students with disabilities and students living in poverty in this priority, as these subgroups experience particular challenges in accessing and participating in rigorous computer science. These student subgroups contribute to America's economic growth and prosperity and must be afforded the same opportunities to learn about and engage in STEM and computer science in the course of their education. Therefore, we have added to subpart (d) an explicit mention of students with disabilities and low-income students.
With respect to adding subpart (d) as an absolute or competitive preference
Further, Priority 6 accommodates professional development for teachers of students of all ages and allows for grant applicants to focus on particular content areas within STEM and computer science. With respect to evidence-based practices, subpart (a) includes explicit reference to evidence-based practices, and the Department can further add evidence priorities consistent with EDGAR if we determine that they are appropriate. While we appreciate the strategy of modeling in the context of professional development, we decline to specify any single approach to professional development and rather prefer to allow grant applicants the discretion to determine which approach they believe will help ensure effective professional development.
Regarding professional development for educators that specifically targets the needs of students with disabilities or English learners, we agree that teachers must have the skill set necessary to support the learning needs of all students. Subpart (a) of Priority 6 would not preclude grant applicants from proposing to focus specifically on professional development to build educator capacity to address the needs of students with disabilities or English learners. Finally, subpart (a) specifically addresses the needs of teachers that may transition from other fields to STEM and computer science.
Additionally, a few commenters requested elaboration on the meaning of some terms associated with Priority 10. Specifically, some commenters requested that the Department articulate the systemic and societal aspects of bullying and one commenter expressed concern that not clarifying “effective strategies” could lead to disparities in discipline practices and loss of social-emotional supports for students with high needs. A few commenters suggested adding additional statistics, the role of educators, and usage of disciplinary measures to the background section.
Additionally we acknowledge the commenter's suggestion to add statistics as well as the role of educators and usage of disciplinary measures to the background section. We also understand, as commenters suggested, that these policies can impact different types of learners and different subgroups in important ways. We remind commenters that all grant programs carried out using these priorities must be done so in accordance with existing State and Federal laws. In addition, while many of the principles outlined above are important, we decline to limit the flexibility of grantees to meet local and individual needs. Moreover, as the background section is not part of the final priorities; we do not think it is necessary to make the requested changes.
We support the Military Interstate Children's Compact and recognize that the compact only applies to public schools. However, this priority applies to the academic needs of all family members of service members or veterans. Recent research has shown that a solid proportion of military parents have had experiences outside of traditional public schools, with a solid proportion of military parents reporting experiences at charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling for at least one-half of the school year.
Regarding concerns as to what this priority would mean for public schools, we believe that equal access and opportunity—being for choice—is not incompatible with supporting public schools. To avoid confusion expressed by some commenters that the title of this priority intended to limit this priority to projects addressing “educational choice”, as defined in this notice, we are revising the title of the priority.
Moreover, this priority will be used in programs that complement the program statute, rather than replacing statutory requirements under Federal law and must be aligned with the language of a given program, where applicable.
The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in any Department discretionary grant program.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the proportion of students with access to educational choice (as defined in this notice).
(b) Increasing access to educational choice (as defined in this notice) for one or more of the following groups of children or students:
(i) Children or students in communities served by rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).
(ii) Children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice).
(iii) English learners (as defined in this notice).
(iv) Students in schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), (c)(4)(D), or
(v) Students who are living in poverty (as defined under section 1113(a)(5)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended) and are served by high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice), or are low-income individuals (as defined under section 312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
(vi) Disconnected youth (as defined in this notice).
(vii) Migratory children.
(viii) Low-skilled adults.
(ix) Students who are Indians, as defined in section 6151 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(x) Military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this notice).
(xi) Children or students who are academically far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, or who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time.
(xii) Children or students who are homeless.
(xiii) Children or students who are or have been incarcerated.
(xiv) Children or students who are or were previously in foster care.
(xv) Children in early learning settings.
(c) Developing or increasing access to evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) innovative models of educational choice (as defined in this notice).
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Implementing strategies that ensure education funds are spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
(b) Supporting innovative strategies or research that have the potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the delivery of educational services or other significant and tangible educational benefits to students, educators, or other Department stakeholders.
(c) Reducing compliance burden within the grantee's operations (including on subgrantees or other partners working to achieve grant objectives or being served by the grant) in a manner that decreases paperwork or staff time spent on administrative functions, or other measurable ways that help education providers to save money, benefit more children or students, or improve results.
(d) Demonstrating innovative paths to improved outcomes by applicants that meet the requirements in 34 CFR 75.225(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
(e) Strengthening development capabilities to increase private support for institutions.
(f) Demonstrating matching support for proposed projects:
(i) 10% of the total amount of the grant.
(ii) 50% of the total amount of the grant.
(iii) 100% of the total amount of the grant.
(g) Partnering with one or multiple local or State entities, such as schools, local educational agencies or State educational agencies, businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or institutions of higher education, to help meet the goals of the project.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Improving collaboration between education providers and employers to ensure student learning objectives are aligned with the skills or knowledge required for employment in in-demand industry sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014).
(b) Developing or implementing pathways to recognized postsecondary credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA)) focused on career and technical skills that align with in-demand industry sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of WIOA). Students may obtain such credentials through a wide variety of education providers, such as: Institutions of higher education eligible for Federal student financial aid programs, nontraditional education providers (
(c) Providing work-based learning experiences (such as internships, apprenticeships, and fellowships) that align with in-demand industry sectors or occupations (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014).
(d) Creating or expanding innovative paths to a recognized postsecondary credential or obtainment of job-ready skills that align with in-demand industry sectors or occupation (as defined in section 3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA)), such as through career pathways (as defined in section 3(7) of WIOA). Such credentials may be offered to students through a wide variety of education providers, such as providers eligible for Federal student financial aid programs, nontraditional education providers, and providers of self-guided learning.
(e) Creating or expanding opportunities for individuals to obtain recognized postsecondary credentials through the demonstration of prior knowledge and skills, such as competency-based learning. Such credentials may include an industry-recognized certificate or certification, a certificate of completion of an apprenticeship, a license recognized by the State involved or Federal Government, or an associate or baccalaureate degree.
(f) Creating or expanding opportunities for students to obtain recognized postsecondary credentials in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer science (as defined in this notice).
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Fostering knowledge of the common rights and responsibilities of American citizenship and civic participation, such as through civics education consistent with section 203(12) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
(b) Supporting projects likely to improve student academic performance and better prepare students for employment, responsible citizenship, and fulfilling lives, including by preparing children or students to do one or more of the following:
(i) Develop positive personal relationships with others.
(ii) Develop determination, perseverance, and the ability to overcome obstacles.
(iii) Develop self-esteem through perseverance and earned success.
(iv) Develop problem-solving skills.
(v) Develop self-regulation in order to work toward long-term goals.
(c) Supporting instruction in time management, job seeking, personal organization, public and interpersonal communication, or other practical skills needed for successful career outcomes.
(d) Supporting instruction in personal financial literacy, knowledge of markets and economics, knowledge of higher education financing and repayment (
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Ensuring children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice) are offered the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and receive educational programs that are both meaningful and appropriately ambitious in light of each child's or student's circumstances by improving one or more of the following:
(i) Academic outcomes.
(ii) Functional outcomes.
(iii) Development of skills leading to postsecondary education, competitive integrated employment, or independent living.
(iv) Social or emotional development.
(b) Ensuring coursework, books, or other materials are accessible to children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice).
(c) Developing opportunities for students who are gifted and talented (as defined in section 8101(27) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), particularly students with high needs (as defined in this notice) who may not be served by traditional gifted and talented programs, so that they can reach their full potential, such as by providing a greater number of gifted and talented students with access to challenging coursework or other materials.
Projects designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice). These projects may be required to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number of educators adequately prepared to deliver rigorous instruction in STEM fields, including computer science (as defined in this notice), through recruitment, evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) professional development strategies for current STEM educators, or evidence-based retraining strategies for current educators seeking to transition from other subjects to STEM fields.
(b) Supporting student mastery of key prerequisites (
(c) Identifying and implementing instructional strategies in STEM fields, including computer science, that are supported by either—
(i) Strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1); or
(ii) Strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
(d) Expanding access to and participation in rigorous computer science (as defined in this notice) coursework for traditionally underrepresented students such as racial or ethnic minorities, women, students in communities served by rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice), children or students with disabilities (as defined in this notice), or low-income individuals (as defined under section 312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
(e) Increasing access to STEM coursework, including computer science (as defined in this notice), and hands-on learning opportunities, such as through expanded course offerings, dual-enrollment, high-quality online coursework, or other innovative delivery mechanisms.
(f) Creating or expanding partnerships between schools, local educational agencies, State educational agencies, businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or institutions of higher education to give students access to internships, apprenticeships, or other work-based learning experiences in STEM fields, including computer science (as defined in this notice).
(g) Other evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) and innovative approaches to expanding access to high-quality STEM education, including computer science.
(h) Utilizing technology for educational purposes in communities served by rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice) or other areas identified as lacking sufficient access to such tools and resources.
(i) Utilizing technology to provide access to educational choice (as defined in this notice).
(j) Working with schools, municipal libraries, or other partners to provide new and accessible methods of accessing digital learning resources, such as by digitizing books or expanding access to such resources to a greater number of children or students.
(k) Supporting programs that lead to recognized postsecondary credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)) or skills that align with the skill needs of industries in the State or regional economy involved for careers in STEM fields, including computer science.
(l) Making coursework, books, or other materials available as open educational resources or taking other steps so that such materials may be inexpensively and widely used.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Promoting literacy interventions supported by strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), including by supporting educators with the knowledge, skills, professional development (as defined in section 8101(42) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), or materials necessary to promote such literacy interventions.
(b) Providing families with evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA) strategies for promoting literacy. This may include providing families with access to books or other physical or digital materials or content about how to support their child's reading development, or providing family literacy activities (as defined in section 203(9) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act).
(c) Facilitating the accurate and timely use of data by educators to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to help children or students build literacy skills while protecting student and family privacy.
(d) Integrating literacy instruction into content-area teaching using practices supported by either—
(i) Strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1); or
(ii) Strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
(e) Supporting the development of literacy skills to meet the employment and independent living needs of adults using practices supported by strong evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing new career pathways for effective educators to assume leadership roles while maintaining instructional responsibilities and direct interaction with students, and offering these educators incentives, such as additional compensation or planning time.
(b) Supporting the recruitment or retention of educators who are effective and increase diversity (including, but not limited to, racial and ethnic diversity).
(c) Promoting innovative strategies to increase the number of students who have access to effective educators in one or more of the following:
(i) Schools that will be served by the project.
(ii) Schools that are located in communities served by rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice); or
(iii) High-poverty schools (as defined in this notice).
(d) Promoting innovative strategies to increase the number of students who have access to effective principals or other school leaders in one or more of the following:
(i) Schools that will be served by the project.
(ii) Schools that are located in communities served by rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice); or
(iii) High-poverty schools (as defined in this notice).
(e) Developing or implementing innovative staffing or compensation models to attract or retain effective educators.
(f) Recruiting or preparing promising students and qualified individuals from other fields to become teachers, principals, or other school leaders, such as mid-career professionals from other occupations, former military personnel, or recent graduates of institutions of higher education with records of academic distinction who demonstrate potential to become effective teachers, principals, or other school leaders.
(g) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice).
Projects designed to increase educational opportunities by reducing academic or nonacademic barriers to economic mobility. These projects may be required to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Aligning Federal, State, or local funding streams to promote economic mobility of low-income individuals (as defined under section 312(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended).
(b) Building greater and more effective family engagement in the education of their children or students.
(c) Creating or supporting alternative paths to a regular high school diploma (as defined in section 8101(43) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended) or recognized postsecondary credentials (as defined in section 3(52) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act) for students whose environments outside of school, disengagement with a traditional curriculum, homelessness, or other challenges make it more difficult for them to complete an educational program.
(d) Increasing the number of children who enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life by supporting families and communities.
(e) Creating or expanding partnerships with community-based organizations to provide supports and services to students and families.
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Protecting free speech in order to allow for the discussion of diverse ideas or viewpoints.
(b) Creating positive and safe learning environments that support the needs of all students, including by providing school personnel with effective strategies.
(c) Developing positive learning environments that promote strong relationships among students and school personnel to help prevent bullying, violence, and disruptive actions that diminish the opportunity for each student to receive a high-quality education.
Projects that are designed to address the academic needs of military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this notice).
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in any Department discretionary grant program that uses one or more of these priorities.
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information.
In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
(1) Public educational programs or courses including those offered by traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, public online education providers, or other public education providers.
(2) Private or home-based educational programs or courses including those offered by private schools, private online providers, private tutoring providers, community or faith-based organizations, or other private education providers.
(3) Internships, apprenticeships, or other programs offering access to learning in the workplace.
(4) Part-time coursework or career preparation, offered by a public or private provider in person or through the internet or another form of distance learning, that serves as a supplement to full-time enrollment at an educational institution, as a stand-alone program leading to a credential, or as a supplement to education received in a homeschool setting.
(5) Dual or concurrent enrollment programs or early college high schools (as defined in section 8101(15) and (17) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), or other programs that enable secondary school students to begin earning credit toward a postsecondary degree or credential prior to high school graduation.
(6) Access to services or programs for aspiring or current postsecondary students not offered by the institution in which they are currently enrolled to support retention and graduation.
(7) Other educational services including credit-recovery, accelerated learning, or tutoring.
(a) A child participating in an early learning and development program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service) or is a veteran of the uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 3311).
(b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or veteran.
(c) A child participating in an early learning and development program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment, or otherwise promulgates, that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2017, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Although this regulatory action is a significant regulatory action, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply because this regulatory action is a “transfer rule” not covered by the Executive order.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these final priorities and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits will justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that will maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action will not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from regulatory requirements and those we have determined are necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
The final priorities and definitions would impose minimal costs on entities that would receive assistance through the Department's discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs because it would result in the Department's discretionary grant programs encouraging the submission of a greater number of high-quality applications and supporting activities that reflect the Administration's educational priorities.
Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program that is using one or more of the final priorities in its competition. Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small entities.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.
| 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 |