| Page Range | 11129-11394 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 11393 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran | |
| 83 FR 11146 - Satellite Communications | |
| 83 FR 11145 - Drawbridge Operations Regulations | |
| 83 FR 11143 - Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cancer (Malignant Neoplastic Diseases) | |
| 83 FR 11251 - Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting Cancellation | |
| 83 FR 11242 - Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11201 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 83 FR 11189 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11189 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 11243 - Public Meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 11188 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11164 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Electronic Reporting for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels and Headboats in Atlantic Fisheries | |
| 83 FR 11227 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 11235 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 11223 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 11234 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 11146 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Implementation of a Federal Limited Entry Drift Gillnet Permit | |
| 83 FR 11187 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Administrative Matters | |
| 83 FR 11248 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification to Consent Decree Under The Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 11185 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts | |
| 83 FR 11247 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act | |
| 83 FR 11226 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 11228 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 11225 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 11233 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application for Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) | |
| 83 FR 11186 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Information Collection in Support of the DoD Acquisition Process (Various Miscellaneous Requirements) | |
| 83 FR 11213 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 11184 - Science Advisory Board (SAB); Public Meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 11221 - Laboratory Animal Welfare: Coordination and Harmonization of Regulations and Policies | |
| 83 FR 11219 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NIH) | |
| 83 FR 11266 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11262 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11146 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer | |
| 83 FR 11261 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11153 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 11275 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of ProShares QuadPro Funds Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E | |
| 83 FR 11276 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Introduce the ATR Protection for Orders That Are Routed to Away Markets | |
| 83 FR 11259 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Introduce the ATR Protection for Orders That Are Routed to Away Markets | |
| 83 FR 11254 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Introduce the ATR Protection for Orders That Are Routed to Away Markets | |
| 83 FR 11281 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7600(c) To State That the Qualified Open Outcry (“QOO”) Order is Subject to the Trade-Through Exceptions Outlined in Rule 15010(b) | |
| 83 FR 11283 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delist the Shares of the iShares Edge U.S. Fixed Income Balanced Risk ETF From Listing Pursuant to Rule 14.11(i) and Approval Orders Issued by the Commission as a Series of Managed Fund Shares, and To Re-List Pursuant to Rule 14.11(c)(4) as a Series of Index Fund Shares | |
| 83 FR 11264 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of a Series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth Strategy ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust Under Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund Shares | |
| 83 FR 11273 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of a Series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500 Buffer Protect Strategy ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust Under Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund Shares | |
| 83 FR 11248 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll | |
| 83 FR 11249 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses | |
| 83 FR 11170 - Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
| 83 FR 11175 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of South Africa and Ukraine: Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 83 FR 11172 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Determination of No Shipments; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 11177 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
| 83 FR 11174 - Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 83 FR 11207 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11170 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 153-San Diego, California; Authorization of Production Activity; Plantronics, Inc. (Electronics/Telecommunications); San Diego, California | |
| 83 FR 11162 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Black-Capped Vireo From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Availability of Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan | |
| 83 FR 11184 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11134 - Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; Decreased Assessment Rate | |
| 83 FR 11139 - Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Expiration Date Required for Serial and Subserials and Determination of Expiration Date of Product | |
| 83 FR 11247 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 83 FR 11169 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 11289 - Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 83 FR 11168 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11286 - Caltius Partners V (SBIC), L.P. License No. 09/09-0482; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
| 83 FR 11152 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 11244 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 11293 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 11294 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 11295 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 11252 - Submission for Review: Marital Status Certification Survey, RI 25-7 | |
| 83 FR 11251 - Submission for Review: Verification of Who Is Getting Payments, RI 38-107 and RI 38-147, 3206-0197 | |
| 83 FR 11288 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TERN; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 11289 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PULPO; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 11287 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel OTIUM; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 11286 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CHASING SUMMER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 11288 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ARROW; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 11250 - Notice of Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 11208 - Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Sun Pharma Global FZE; Withdrawal of Approval of Four Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 83 FR 11208 - Patient-Focused Drug Development on Opioid Use Disorder; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 11210 - M7(R1): Assessment and Control of Deoxyribonucleic Acid Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals To Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 11206 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 83 FR 11144 - Medical Devices; Exemption From Premarket Notification; Class II Devices; Over-the-Counter Denture Repair Kit | |
| 83 FR 11143 - Medical Devices; Hematology and Pathology Devices; Classification of Lynch Syndrome Test Systems; Correction | |
| 83 FR 11199 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11194 - Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 83 FR 11192 - Pioneer Valley Renewables; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 83 FR 11195 - Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board for Senior Executives | |
| 83 FR 11198 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 11193 - TransMontaigne Product Services LLC v. Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of Complaint | |
| 83 FR 11192 - Notice of Attendance at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission's Fifth Commissioner Information Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11193 - T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 11194 - Elkton Acquisition Corp.; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 11196 - Commision Information Collection Activities (FERC-725Y), Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 11198 - T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership; Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 11197 - Yellowstone Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Existing Licensee's Notice of Intent To Not File a Subsequent License Application, and Soliciting Pre-Application Documents and Notices of Intent To File a License Application | |
| 83 FR 11194 - NTE Carolinas, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 11193 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status | |
| 83 FR 11198 - Alaska Gasline Development Corporation; Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 83 FR 11195 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 11245 - Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders | |
| 83 FR 11178 - Request for Nominations for Members To Serve on National Institute of Standards and Technology Federal Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 11240 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) Reimbursement Request | |
| 83 FR 11236 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Screening Partnership Program (SPP) | |
| 83 FR 11236 - Enforcement Actions Summary | |
| 83 FR 11145 - Fees | |
| 83 FR 11297 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 11308 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 11303 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 11221 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 11220 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11222 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 11222 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Ready PSA Campaign Creative Testing Research | |
| 83 FR 11252 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Transaction Fees | |
| 83 FR 11262 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Transaction Fees | |
| 83 FR 11269 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Premium Income ETF Under Rule 14.11(c)(5) | |
| 83 FR 11267 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Complimentary Products and Services Available to Certain Eligible New Listings Pursuant to Section 907.00 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual | |
| 83 FR 11256 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Eliminate the Fee for an Explained Decision | |
| 83 FR 11278 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities | |
| 83 FR 11269 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities | |
| 83 FR 11251 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 83 FR 11240 - A75-HUD Central Accounting and Program System (HUDCAPS) Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 11203 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 11202 - Information Collection; Small Business Size Re-Representation | |
| 83 FR 11201 - Information Collection; Material and Workmanship | |
| 83 FR 11212 - Proposed Changes to the Graduate Psychology Education Program | |
| 83 FR 11136 - Honey Packers and Importers Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order; Change in Producer Eligibility Requirements and Implementation of Charges for Past Due Assessments | |
| 83 FR 11217 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records Notice | |
| 83 FR 11154 - Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems | |
| 83 FR 11314 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review | |
| 83 FR 11155 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Regulatory Amendments Addressing Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 83 FR 11129 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment for 2018 | |
| 83 FR 11344 - Affordable Housing Program Amendments |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) civil monetary penalty regulations by making inflation adjustments as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
Effective March 14, 2018.
Heather Self, Esq., OGC, USDA, Room 3311-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1400, (202) 720-5840.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires agencies to adjust for inflation annually.
Previously, the Inflation Adjustment Act required agencies to adjust CMP levels every 4 years based on the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the month of June of the prior calendar year exceeded the CPI for the month of June of the calendar year during which the last adjustment was made. The Inflation Adjustment Act also capped the increase for each adjustment at 10 percent and rounded the adjustment based on the size of the penalty (for example, multiple of $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100). The rounding process meant that penalties would often not be increased at all if the inflation factor was not large enough. Furthermore, the cap on increases of 10 percent in tandem with the rounding meant that the formula over time caused penalties to lose value relative to total inflation. The 2015 Act updates these requirements by prescribing that agencies make annual adjustments for inflation based on the CPI for the month of October and round to the nearest dollar after an initial adjustment.
In order to eliminate the inconsistent changes caused by the prior method, the 2015 Act reset the inflation adjustment by excluding prior inflationary adjustments under the Inflation Adjustment Act, which contributed to a decline in the real value of penalty levels. To do this, the 2015 Act provided that the initial adjustment would be the percentage by which the CPI for the month of October 2015 exceeded that of the month of October of the calendar year during which the amount of the CMP was originally established or otherwise adjusted under a provision of law other than the Inflation Adjustment Act. While the 2015 Act does not provide a cap on adjustments going forward, the initial adjustment under the 2015 Act did limit large CMP increases by providing that no initial adjustments could exceed 150 percent of the amount of the CMP as of the date the 2015 Act was enacted, November 2, 2015.
USDA's initial adjustment under the 2015 Act was published in the
In addition, this rule moves the CMPs previously administered by the former Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). GIPSA's CMPs previously were codified at 7 CFR 3.91(b)(6); they now will be codified with AMS's CMPs at 7 CFR 3.91(b)(1). GIPSA's section of the regulations at 7 CFR 3.91(b)(6) will become a reserved section. This move is in accordance with the reorganization announced by the Secretary of Agriculture on November 14, 2017 via Secretary's Memorandum Number 1076-18, which eliminated GIPSA as a standalone agency within USDA, revoked the delegations of authority to the Administrator of GIPSA found at 7 CFR 2.81, and delegated to the Administrator of AMS those same authorities found at 7 CFR 2.81.
Secretary's Memorandum Number 1076-18 also moved responsibility for the United States Warehouse Act and its associated CMP, see 7 U.S.C. 254, from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to AMS. In accordance with the Secretary's Memorandum this rule moves the United States Warehouse Act CMP previously codified with FSA's CMPs in 7 CFR 3.91(b)(9) to be codified with AMS' CMPs in 7 CFR 3.91(b)(1). Additionally, as the United States Warehouse Act CMP was the only CMP codified in FSA's section. Accordingly, FSA's section of the regulations at 7 CFR 3.91(b)(9) will become a reserved section.
Lastly, this rule amends the maximum monetary penalty amounts imposed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for violating the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (Lacey Act), to be consistent with the inflationary adjustments established by the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). APHIS and FWS have joint jurisdiction over ESA and Lacey Act provisions that involve the importation and exportation of plants, and any violation thereof will be subject to the same maximum penalty, regardless of which agency institutes an enforcement action.
Several USDA agencies administer laws that provide for the imposition of CMPs being adjusted by this final rule. Those agencies are:
(1) Agricultural Marketing Service;
(2) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;
(3) Food and Nutrition Service;
(4) Food Safety and Inspection Service;
(5) Forest Service;
(6) Federal Crop Insurance Corporation;
(7) Rural Housing Service,
(8) Commodity Credit Corporation, and
(9) Office of the Secretary.
The CMPs in this final rule are listed according to the applicable administering agency. The CMPs previously administered by GIPSA and FSA are now found in the section applicable to AMS.
In developing this final rule, we are waiving the usual notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures contained in 5 U.S.C. 553. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule. Specifically the rulemaking comports with and is consistent with the statutory authority required by Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, as amended, with no issue of policy discretion. Accordingly, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and we are issuing this revised regulation as a final rule that will apply to all future cases.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this regulatory action does not meet the criteria for significant regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
As indicated above, the provisions of this final rulemaking contain inflation adjustments in compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The great majority of individuals, organizations, and entities participating in the programs affected by this regulation do not engage in prohibited activities and practices that would result in civil monetary penalties being incurred. Accordingly, we believe that any aggregate economic impact of this revised regulation will be minimal, affecting only the limited number of program participants that may engage in prohibited behavior in violation of the statutes.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) are not applicable to this final rule because USDA was not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.
Administrative practice and procedure, Debt management, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend 7 CFR part 3 as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
(b)
(ii) Civil penalty for a violation of the unfair conduct rule under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, in lieu of license revocation or suspension, codified at 7 U.S.C. 499b(5), has a maximum of $5,029.
(iii) Civil penalty for violation of the licensing requirements under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 499c(a), has a maximum of $1,605 for each such offense and not more than $401 for each day it continues, or a maximum of $401 for each offense if the Secretary determines the violation was not willful.
(iv) Civil penalty in lieu of license suspension under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 499h(e), has a maximum penalty of $3,209 for each violative transaction or each day the violation continues.
(v) Civil penalty for a violation of the Export Apple Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 586, has a minimum of $147 and a maximum of $14,665.
(vi) Civil penalty for a violation of the Export Grape and Plum Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 596, has a minimum of $281 and a maximum of $28,061.
(vii) Civil penalty for a violation of an order issued by the Secretary under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, codified at 7 U.S.C. 608c(14)(B), has a maximum of $2,806. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(viii) Civil penalty for failure to file certain reports under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, reenacted by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, codified at 7 U.S.C. 610(c), has a maximum of $281.
(ix) Civil penalty for a violation of a seed program under the Federal Seed Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1596(b), has a minimum of $96 and a maximum of $1,913.
(x) Civil penalty for failure to collect any assessment or fee for a violation of the Cotton Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2112(b), has a maximum of $2,806.
(xi) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee for a violation of a program under the Potato Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2621(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,257 and a maximum of $12,570.
(xii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Potato Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2621(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,257. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xiii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2714(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,454 and a maximum of $14,544.
(xiv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2714(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,454. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xv) Civil penalty for failure to remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Beef Research and Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2908(a)(2), has a maximum of $11,346.
(xvi) Civil penalty for failure to remit any assessment or for a violation of a program regarding wheat and wheat foods research, codified at 7 U.S.C. 3410(b), has a maximum of $2,806.
(xvii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Floral Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4314(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,320 and a maximum of $13,205.
(xviii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Floral Research and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4314(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,320. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xix) Civil penalty for violation of an order under the Dairy Promotion Program, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4510(b), has a maximum of $2,442.
(xx) Civil penalty for pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4610(b)(1), has a minimum of $752 and a maximum of $7,520.
(xxi) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4610(b)(3), has a maximum of $752. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxii) Civil penalty for a violation of a program under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4815(b)(1)(A)(i), has a maximum of $2,269.
(xxiii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4815(b)(3)(A), has a maximum of $1,135. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxiv) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4910(b)(1), has a minimum of $1,135 and a maximum of $11,346.
(xxv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4910(b)(3), has a maximum of $1,135. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxvi) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Pecan Promotion and Research Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6009(c)(1), has a minimum of $1,848 and a maximum of $18,477.
(xxvii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Pecan Promotion and Research Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6009(e), has a maximum of $1,848.
(xxviii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6107(c)(1), has a minimum of $898 and a maximum of $8,977.
(xxix) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6107(e), has a maximum of $898. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxx) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of the Lime Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6207(c)(1), has a minimum of $898 and a maximum of $8,977.
(xxxi) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Lime Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6207(e), has a maximum of $898. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, codified a 7 U.S.C. 6307(c)(1)(A), has a maximum of $1,848.
(xxxiii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6307(e), has a maximum of $9,239. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxiv) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6411(c)(1)(A), has a minimum of $898 and a maximum of $8,977, or in the case of a violation that is willful, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6411(c)(1)(B), has a minimum of $17,952 and a maximum of $179,522.
(xxxv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6411(e), has a maximum of $9,239. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxvi) Civil penalty for knowingly labeling or selling a product as organic except in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6519(c), has a maximum of $17,952.
(xxxvii) Civil penalty for failure to pay, collect, or remit any assessment or fee or for a violation of a program under the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6808(c)(1)(A)(i), has a minimum of $847 and a maximum of $8,464.
(xxxviii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993, codified at 7 U.S.C. 6808(e)(1), has a maximum of $8,464. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xxxix) Civil penalty for a violation of a program under the Sheep Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1994, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7107(c)(1)(A), has a maximum of $1,650.
(xl) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Sheep Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1994, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7107(e), has a maximum of $824. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xli) Civil penalty for a violation of an order or regulation issued under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7419(c)(1), has a minimum of $1,558 and a maximum of $15,582 for each violation.
(xlii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7419(e), has a minimum of $1,558 and a maximum of $15,582. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xliii) Civil penalty for a violation of an order or regulation issued under the Canola and Rapeseed Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7448(c)(1)(A)(i), has a maximum of $1,558 for each violation.
(xliv) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Canola and Rapeseed Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7448(e), has a maximum of $7,791. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xlv) Civil penalty for violation of an order or regulation issued under the National Kiwifruit Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7468(c)(1), has a minimum of $780 and a maximum of $7,791 for each violation.
(xlvi) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the National Kiwifruit Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7468(e), has a maximum of $780. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(xlvii) Civil penalty for a violation of an order or regulation under the Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7487(a), has a maximum of $1,558 for each violation.
(xlviii) Civil penalty for certain violations under the Egg Products Inspection Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. 1041(c)(1)(A), has a maximum of $8,977 for each violation.
(xlix) Civil penalty for violation of an order or regulation issued under the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 2000, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7807(c)(1)(A)(i), has a minimum of $1,417 and a maximum of $14,177 for each violation.
(l) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 2000, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7807(e)(1), has a maximum of $14,177 for each offense. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(li) Civil penalty for violation of certain provisions of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999, codified a 7 U.S.C. 1636b(a)(1), has a maximum of $14,665 for each violation.
(lii) Civil penalty for failure to obey a cease and desist order under the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999, codified a 7 U.S.C. 1636b(g)(3), has a maximum of $14,665 for each violation. Each day the violation continues is a separate violation.
(liii) Civil penalty for failure to obey an order of the Secretary issued pursuant to the Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting program, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1637b(c)(4)(D)(iii), has a maximum of $14,177 for each offense.
(liv) Civil penalty for a willful violation of the Country of Origin Labeling program by a retailer or person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1638b(b)(2), has a maximum of $1,139 for each violation.
(lv) Civil penalty for violations of the Dairy Research Program, codified at 7 U.S.C. 4535 & 4510(b), has a maximum of $2,442 for each violation.
(lvi) Civil penalty for a packer or swine contractor violation, codified at 7 U.S.C. 193(b), has a maximum of $28,061.
(lvii) Civil penalty for a livestock market agency or dealer failure to register, codified at 7 U.S.C. 203, has a maximum of $1,913 and not more than $96 for each day the violation continues.
(lviii) Civil penalty for operating without filing, or in violation of, a stockyard rate schedule, or of a regulation or order of the Secretary made thereunder, codified at 7 U.S.C. 207(g), has a maximum of $1,913 and not more than $96 for each day the violation continues.
(lix) Civil penalty for a stockyard owner, livestock market agency, or dealer, who engages in or uses any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in connection with determining whether persons should be authorized to operate at the stockyards, or with receiving, marketing, buying, or selling on a commission basis or otherwise, feeding, watering, holding, delivery, shipment, weighing, or handling of livestock, codified at 7 U.S.C. 213(b), has a maximum of $28,061.
(lx) Civil penalty for a stockyard owner, livestock market agency, or dealer, who knowingly fails to obey any order made under the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 211, 212, or 213, codified at 7 U.S.C. 215(a), has a maximum of $1,913.
(lxi) Civil penalty for live poultry dealer violations, codified at 7 U.S.C. 228b-2(b), has a maximum of $81,633.
(lxii) Civil penalty for a violation, codified at 7 U.S.C. 86(c), has a maximum of $274,235.
(lxiii) Civil penalty for failure to comply with certain provisions of the U.S. Warehouse Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 254, has a maximum of $35,440 per violation if an agricultural product is not involved in the violation.
(2)
(ii) Civil penalty for a violation of the Animal Welfare Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2149(b), has a maximum of $11,390, and knowing failure to obey a cease and desist order has a civil penalty of $1,708.
(iii) Civil penalty for any person that causes harm to, or interferes with, an animal used for the purposes of official inspection by the Department, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2279e(a), has a maximum of $14,177.
(iv) Civil penalty for a violation of the Swine Health Protection Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 3805(a), has a maximum of $28,061.
(v) Civil penalty for any person that violates the Plant Protection Act (PPA), or that forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys any certificate, permit, or other document provided for in the PPA, codified a 7 U.S.C. 7734(b)(1), has a maximum of the greater of: $70,881 in the case of any individual (except that the civil penalty may not exceed $1,417 in the case of an initial violation of the PPA by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain), $354,402 in the case of any other person for each violation, $569,468 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations do not include a willful violation, and $1,138,937 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations include a willful violation; or twice the gross gain or gross loss for any violation, forgery, counterfeiting, unauthorized us, defacing, or destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document provided for in the PPA that results in the person deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another.
(vi) Civil penalty for any person (except as provided in 7 U.S.C. 8309(d)) that violates the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), or that forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys any certificate, permit, or other document provided under the AHPA, codified at 7 U.S.C. 8313(b)(1), has a maximum of the greater of: $68,027 in the case of any individual, except that the civil penalty may not exceed $1,360 in the case of an initial violation of the AHPA by an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain, $340,131 in the case of any other person for each violation, $569,468 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations do not include a willful violation, and $1,138,937 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding if the violations include a willful violation; or twice the gross gain or gross loss for any violation, forgery, counterfeiting, unauthorized use, defacing, or destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document provided under the AHPA that results in the person's deriving pecuniary gain
(vii) Civil penalty for any person that violates certain regulations under the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 regarding transfers of listed agents and toxins or possession and use of listed agents and toxins, codified at 7 U.S.C. 8401(i)(1), has a maximum of $340,131 in the case of an individual and $680,262 in the case of any other person.
(viii) Civil penalty for violation of the Horse Protection Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1825(b)(1), has a maximum of $5,612.
(ix) Civil penalty for failure to obey Horse Protection Act disqualification, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1825(c), has a maximum of $10,969.
(x) Civil penalty for knowingly violating, or, if in the business as an importer or exporter, violating, with respect to terrestrial plants, any provision of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, any permit or certificate issued thereunder, or any regulation issued pursuant to section 9(a)(1)(A) through (F), (a)(2)(A) through (D), (c), (d) (other than regulations relating to record keeping or filing reports), (f), or (g), as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 1540(a)(1), has a maximum of $51,302 for each violation.
(xi) Civil penalty for knowingly violating, or, if in the business as an importer or exporter, violating, with respect to terrestrial plants, any other regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 1540(a)(1), has a maximum of $24,625 for each violation.
(xii) Civil penalty for violating, with respect to terrestrial plants, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or any regulation, permit, or certificate issued thereunder, as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 1540(a)(1), has a maximum of $1,296 for each violation.
(xiii) Civil penalty for knowingly and willfully violating 49 U.S.C. 80502 with respect to the transportation of animals by any rail carrier, express carrier, or common carrier (except by air or water), a receiver, trustee, or lessee of one of those carriers, or an owner or master of a vessel, codified at 49 U.S.C. 80502(d), has a minimum of $165 and a maximum of $824.
(xiv) Civil penalty for a violation of the Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act, 7 U.S.C. 1901 note, and its implementing regulations in 9 CFR part 88, as set forth in 9 CFR 88.6, has a maximum of $5000. Each horse transported in violation of Part 88 is a separate violation.
(xv) Civil penalty for knowingly violating section 3(d) or 3(f) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, or for violating any other provision provided that, in the exercise of due care, the violator should have known that the plant was taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any underlying law, treaty, or regulation, has a maximum of $25,928 for each violation, as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(1) (but if the plant has a market value of less than $350, and involves only the transportation, acquisition, or receipt of a plant taken or possessed in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States, any Indian tribal law, any foreign law, or any law or regulation of any State, the penalty shall not exceed the maximum provided for violation of said law, treaty, or regulation, or $25,928, whichever is less).
(xvi) Civil penalty for violating section 3(f) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, as set forth at 16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(2), has a maximum of $648.
(3)
(ii) Civil penalty for trafficking in food coupons, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2021(b)(3)(B), has a maximum of $41,042 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $73,906.
(iii) Civil penalty for the sale of firearms, ammunitions, explosives, or controlled substances for coupons, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2021(b)(3)(C), has a maximum of $36,953 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $73,906.
(iv) Civil penalty for any entity that submits a bid to supply infant formula to carry out the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children and discloses the amount of the bid, rebate, or discount practices in advance of the bid opening or for any entity that makes a statement prior to the opening of bids for the purpose of influencing a bid, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786(h)(8)(H)(i), has a maximum of $173,951,364.
(v) Civil penalty for a vendor convicted of trafficking in food instruments, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(4)(B), has a maximum of $15,041 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $60,161.
(vi) Civil penalty for a vendor convicted of selling firearms, ammunition, explosive, or controlled substances in exchange for food instruments, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 1786(o)(4)(B), has a maximum of $15,041 for each violation, except that the maximum penalty for violations occurring during a single investigation is $60,161.
(4)
(ii) [Reserved]
(5)
(ii) Civil penalty for a violation in disregard of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or the regulations that implement such Act regardless of whether such violation caused the export of unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands, codified at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(i), has a maximum of $138,575 per violation.
(iii) Civil penalty for a person that should have known that an action was a violation of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or the regulations that implement such Act regardless of whether such violation caused the export of unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands, codified at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(ii), has a maximum of $92,383 per violation.
(iv) Civil penalty for a willful violation of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act or the regulations that implement such Act regardless of whether such violation caused the export of unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands, codified at 16 U.S.C. 620d(c)(2)(A)(iii), has a maximum of $923,831.
(v) Civil penalty for a violation involving protections of caves, codified at 16 U.S. C. 4307(a)(2), has a maximum of $20,191.
(6) [Reserved]
(7)
(ii) [Reserved]
(8)
(ii) Civil penalty for equity skimming under section 543(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1490s(a)(2), has a maximum of $35,440.
(iii) Civil penalty under section 543b of the Housing Act of 1949 for a violation of regulations or agreements made in accordance with Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, by submitting false information, submitting false certifications, failing to timely submit information, failing to maintain real property in good repair and condition, failing to provide acceptable management for a project, or failing to comply with applicable civil rights statutes and regulations, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1490s(b)(3)(A), has a maximum of the greater of: twice the damages the Department, guaranteed lender, or project that is secured for a loan under Title V, suffered or would have suffered as a result of the violation; or $70,881 per violation.
(9) [Reserved]
(10)
(ii) Civil penalty for willful failure or refusal to furnish information or willful furnishing of false data by a processor, refiner, or importer of sugar, syrup and molasses under section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7272(g)(5), has a maximum of $15,582 for each violation.
(iii) Civil penalty for filing a false acreage report that exceeds tolerance under section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, codified at 7 U.S.C. 7272(g)(5), has a maximum of $15,582 for each violation.
(iv) Civil penalty for knowingly violating any regulation of the Secretary of the Commodity Credit Corporation pertaining to flexible marketing allotments for sugar under section 359h(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1359hh(b), has a maximum of $11,390 for each violation.
(v) Civil penalty for knowing violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary pertaining to cotton insect eradication under section 104(d) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1444a(d), has a maximum of $14,031 for each offense.
(11)
(ii) Civil penalty for making, presenting, submitting or causing to be made, presented or submitted, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent written statement as defined under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, codified at 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(2), has a maximum of $11,182.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture adopts as final, without change, an interim rule that implemented a recommendation from the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent production years and administrative revisions to the subpart headings to bring the language into conformance with the Office of Federal Register requirements.
Effective March 15, 2018.
Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or Jeffrey Smutny, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following website:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Part 983 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of pistachios operating within the area of production, and a public member.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
Under the Order, pistachio handlers in California, Arizona, and New Mexico are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the Order. Assessment rates issued under the Order are intended to be applicable to all assessable pistachios for the entire production year, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are 18 handlers subject to regulation under the order and approximately 1,236 producers of pistachios in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on Committee data, it is estimated that about 50 percent of the handlers annually ship less than $7,500,000 worth of pistachios. Nine of the 18 (50 percent) regulated handlers received enough pistachios at an average price of $2.50 per pound to be considered large handlers, leaving the percentage of small handlers at 50 percent.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2012 data on pistachio farm size indicates that there were 1,305 pistachio farms, of which 945, or 72 percent, were less than 100 acres. NASS 2016 annual production data indicates that the per-acre production of pistachios was 3,750 pounds. At an average value of $1.68 per pound, each acre of pistachios could return $6,300. In order for a producer to have $750,000 in annual receipts, the producer would have to have at least 119 acres. Thus, about half the handlers and a majority of the producers in the production area may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the interim rule that decreased the assessment rate established and collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent production years from $0.0010 to $0.0001 per pound of pistachios handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $672,900, and recommended an assessment rate of $0.0001 per pound of assessed weight pistachios, by majority vote. The $0.0001 assessment rate is $0.0009 lower than the rate previously in effect. The quantity of assessable pistachios for the 2017-18 production year is estimated at 550 million pounds. Thus, the $0.0001 rate should provide $55,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler's assessments, along with interest income, California Pistachio Research Board (CPRB) management income, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover expenses for the 2017-18 production year, while not adding to the financial reserve.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.
Additionally, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 10, 2017, and August 1, 2017, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0215, “Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before December, 26, 2017. No comments were received. Therefore, for reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, 13563, and 13771; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Pistachios, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule revises the eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Honey Packers and Importers Board (Board) and prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) regulation regarding a national research and promotion program for honey and honey products. This rule reduces the minimum production requirement for producers to serve on the Board and thereby allow more producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. This rule also prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments to help facilitate program administration.
Effective Date: April 13, 2018.
Sue Coleman, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202)378-2569; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
This rule affecting 7 CFR part 1212 is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This rule revises the eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Board and prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Honey Packers and Importers Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order. The part is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the part, assessments are collected from first handlers and importers and used for research and promotion projects designed to maintain and expand the market for honey and honey products in the United States and abroad. This rule reduces the minimum production requirement for producers to serve on the Board from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually and thereby allow more producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. This rule also prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments to help facilitate program administration. Both of these actions were unanimously recommended by the Board.
Section 1212.46 of the part provides authority for the Board to recommend amendments to the part. Section 1212.40 of the part provides that the Board have ten members—three first handlers, two importers, one importer-handler, three producers, and one marketing cooperative representative. Currently, eligible producers must produce a minimum of 150,000 pounds of honey in the United States annually based on the best three-year average of the most recent five calendar years.
The Board has had difficulty over the past few years in identifying honey producers who meet the current eligibility requirement for production volume. U.S. honey production has decreased and fewer producers can meet the part's eligibility requirement. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service estimates U.S. honey production from producers with 5 or more colonies at 164 million pounds in 2008
Thus, the Board formed a subcommittee in October 2015 to review this issue. Over the following six months, the Board conducted outreach with beekeeping associations to gather input about the need and the level to reduce the annual production volume requirement for producers to serve on the Board. The recommendation from
The Board met in April 2016 and unanimously recommended that the part's minimum production requirement for producers be reduced from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds. This should allow more producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. Section 1212.40 of the part is revised accordingly.
Section 1212.52 of the part specifies that the Board will cover its expenses by levying an assessment on first handlers and importers. First handlers must pay their assessments to the Board on a monthly basis no later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month in which the honey or honey products were marketed. Importers must pay assessments to the Board on honey and honey products imported into the United States through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs). If Customs does not collect an assessment from an importer, the importer must pay the assessment directly to the Board.
The honey program also provides for two exemptions. Pursuant to § 1212.53, first handlers and importers who handle or import less than 250,000 pounds of honey or honey products annually, and first handlers and importers of organic honey and honey products are exempt from the payment of assessments.
Section 1212.52(g) of the part specifies that the Board shall impose a late payment charge on any first handler or importer who fails to pay their assessments to the Board on time. First handlers or importers subject to a late payment charge must also pay interest on the unpaid assessments for which they are liable. The late payment and interest charges must be prescribed in regulations issued by USDA.
Assessment funds are used by the Board for activities designed to benefit all industry members. Thus, it is important that all assessed entities pay their assessments in a timely manner. Entities who fail to pay their assessments on time would be able to reap the benefits of Board programs at the expense of others. In addition, they would be able to utilize funds for their own use that should otherwise be paid to the Board to finance Board programs.
Thus, the Board recommended that rates of late payment and interest charges for past due assessments be prescribed in the part's regulations. A late payment charge will be imposed upon first handlers and importers who fail to pay their assessments to the Board within 30 calendar days of the date when assessments are due. This one-time late payment charge will be 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.
Additionally, interest at a rate of
This action is expected to help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities. Accordingly, a new subpart C is added to the part's regulations regarding past due assessments, and a new § 1212.520 is added to subpart C.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms (first handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million.
The Board reported that there are about 752 importers and 41 first handlers of honey and honey products covered under the program during the 2016 fiscal period. Seventeen out of the 41 first handlers (41 percent) and 25 out of the 752 importers (3 percent) accounted for 90 percent of the assessments in their respective categories. Total assessments for 2016 were $6.74 million, of which $1.75 million (26 percent) came from first handlers and $4.99 million (74 percent) was paid by importers. This data can be used to compute an estimate of average annual revenue from honey sales from each of these categories, which in turn helps to estimate the number of large and small first handlers and importers. As mentioned above, 17 first handlers account for 90 percent of the domestic assessments. Multiplying first handler assessments in 2016 of $1,750,155 by 0.9 and then dividing by 17 yields an average annual assessment of $92,655 for the first handlers in this category. Dividing this figure ($92,655) by the assessment rate of 1.5 cents per pound ($0.015) yields an average quantity per first handler of 6.177 million pounds. Multiplying 6.177 million pounds by the average 2016 U.S. domestic price of $2.08 per pound
An equivalent computation can be made for the 25 importers who paid 90 percent of the $4,991,926 in assessments in 2016. Of the 25 importers, the average assessment per importer was $179,709. Dividing the average assessment per importer by the assessment rate of $0.015 per pound yields an average quantity per importer estimate of 11.981 million pounds.
For honey imports, the equivalent of the season average price for domestic honey is referred to as a “unit value.” The unit value of $1.24 per pound is computed by dividing annual imported honey value of $417.31 million by average quantity of 335.69 million pounds (import data from the Foreign Agricultural Service). Multiplying the $1.24 unit value by the average quantity of 11.981 million pounds yields average annual honey revenue per importer figure of $14.856 million, almost two times the SBA threshold figure of $7.5 million for a large firm. Therefore, the majority of the 25 importers that pay 90 percent of the assessments are large firms, according to the SBA definition.
Comparable computations can be made to determine the average 2016 honey revenue for the 24 first handlers and 727 importers that paid 10 percent of the assessments in the first handler and importer categories. The first handler and importer average annual honey revenue figures are approximately $1,011,000 and $57,000,
Based on the foregoing, the majority of first handlers and importers may be classified as small entities.
This rule relaxes the part's eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Board as specified in section 1212.40 of the part. The program currently requires that producer representatives produce a minimum of 150,000 pounds of honey (based on the best three year average of the most recent five calendar years) in the United States annually. U.S. honey production has been decreasing and fewer producers can meet this eligibility requirement. Thus, the Board unanimously recommended reducing the minimum production requirement from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually. This will allow for a greater pool of producer nominees to be eligible to serve on the Board. Authority for this action is provided in § 1212.46(d) of the part.
This rule also prescribes charges for past due assessments under the part. A new § 1212.520 is added to the part specifying a one-time late payment charge of 10 percent of the assessments due and interest at a rate of
Regarding the economic impact of this rule on affected entities, relaxing the eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Board is administrative in nature and will have no economic impact on entities covered under the program. This change will help increase the number of producers who will be eligible to serve on the Board. Eligible producers, first handlers and importers interested in serving on the Board will have to complete a background questionnaire. Those requirements are addressed later in this rule in the section titled
Prescribing charges for past due assessments will impose no additional costs on first handlers and importers who pay their assessments on time. It merely provides an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner. For all entities who are delinquent in paying assessments, both large and small, the charges will be applied uniformly. As for the impact on the industry as a whole, this action will help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process for all assessed entities.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, the part also provides for two exemptions. First handlers and importers who handle or import less than 250,000 pounds of honey or honey products annually, and first handlers and importers of organic honey and honey products are exempt from the payment of assessments.
Regarding alternatives, one option to the action regarding producer eligibility would be to maintain the status quo and not reduce the production threshold for producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. However, the Board has been having difficulty identifying producer nominees who produce over 150,000 pounds of honey annually. After outreach to beekeeping associations, the Board concluded that reducing the minimum production requirement for producers from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually is appropriate to increase the pool of eligible producers.
Likewise, an alternative to the action to prescribe late payment and interest charges for past due assessments would be to maintain the status quo and not prescribe these charges. However, the Board determined that implementing such charges will help facilitate program administration by encouraging entities to pay their assessments in a timely manner. The Board reviewed rates of late payment and interest charges prescribed in other research and promotion programs and concluded that the late payment charge and the interest charge contained in this rule is appropriate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements that are imposed by the part have been previously approved by OMB under OMB control number 0581-0093. Additionally, Board nominees (including producers) must submit a Background Information form (AD-755) to ensure they are qualified to serve on the Board. The time to complete that form is estimated at 30 minutes per response. The background form is approved under OMB control no. 0505-0001. This rule will not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved and will impose no additional reporting requirements and recordkeeping burden on honey producers, first handlers or importers.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Regarding outreach efforts, as previously mentioned, this action was discussed at a subcommittee in October 2015. The Board conducted outreach over the following six months to beekeeping associations to gather input about the need to reduce the annual production volume requirement for eligible producers on the Board. The Board met in April 2016 and unanimously recommended reducing the production volume requirement from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually. The Board also recommended prescribing late payment charges and interest on past due assessments in the part's regulations. All of the Board's meetings are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
One comment was received in response to the proposed rule. The comment requested two public seats on the Board because of taxpayer dollars and environmental concerns. Currently, the plan does not authorize a Board public member. The national research and promotion program for honey and honey products is funded through assessments paid by honey first handlers and importers. This comment is considered outside the scope. These types of concerns can be presented to the Board for their consideration. In addition, all Board meetings are open to the public to attend. No changes have been made to the rule based on this comment.
After consideration of all relevant matters presented, including the information and recommendation
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Honey Packer and Importer promotion, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1212 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
The Honey Packers and Importers Board is established to administer the terms and provisions of this part. The Board shall have ten members, composed of three first handler representatives, two importer representatives, one importer-handler representative, three producer representatives, and one marketing cooperative representative. The importer-handler representative must import at least 75 percent of the honey or honey products they market in the United States and handle at least 250,000 pounds annually. In addition, the producer representatives must produce a minimum of 50,000 pounds of honey in the United States annually based on the best three-year average of the most recent five calendar years, as certified by producers. The Secretary will appoint members to the Board from nominees submitted in accordance with § 1212.42. The Secretary shall also appoint an alternate for each member.
(a) A late payment charge will be imposed on any first handler or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which they are liable. The late payment will be imposed on any assessments not received within 30 calendar days of the date when assessments are due. This one-time late payment charge will be 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.
(b) In addition to the late payment charge,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations to clarify that the expiration date of a serial or subserial of a veterinary biologic should be computed from the date of the initiation of the first potency test. We are also requiring the expiration dating period (stability) of a product to be confirmed by conducting a real-time stability study with a stability-indicating assay, stability monitoring of products after licensing, and specifying a single standard for determining the expiration date for veterinary biologics
Effective April 13, 2018.
Dr. Donna L. Malloy, Section Leader, Operational Support, Center for Veterinary Biologics Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3426.
The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act regulations in 9 CFR part 114 (referred to below as the regulations), contain requirements for computing expiration dates and determining expiration dating periods (stability) for veterinary biologics. Currently, § 114.12 of the regulations requires each serial or subserial of veterinary biological products prepared in a licensed establishment to be given an expiration date, and § 114.13 provides that the expiration date for each product shall be computed from the date of the initiation of the potency test.
Prior to licensure, licensees and permittees must submit preliminary information to support the dating period shown on its labeling. Products are licensed with the provision that the dating period must be confirmed by real-time stability testing at the end of the predicted shelf life. Currently, the requirement in § 114.13 of the regulations for confirming stability is contingent upon whether a product consists of viable or non-viable organisms. For products consisting of viable organisms, each serial must be tested for potency at release and at the approximate expiration date until a statistically valid stability record has been established. For products consisting of non-viable organisms, each serial presented in support of licensure (prelicensing serials) must be tested for potency at release and at or after the dating requested. Products with satisfactory potency tests at the beginning and end of dating are considered to be efficacious throughout the requested dating period. Current science, however, considers stability estimates based on potency tests conducted at the beginning and end of the dating (a two-point profile) to be inaccurate and imprecise.
To address this situation, on September 17, 2010, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending November 16, 2010. We received eight comments by that date. They were from licensed manufacturers, national trade associations representing manufacturers of animal health products, a professional organization, and a private citizen. The comments are discussed below by topic.
In our review of the comments, it was evident that many commenters found the organization and wording of proposed § 114.13 to be confusing. For this reason, in addition to adopting some changes requested by commenters to the provisions, we have reorganized and reworded parts of this section to more clearly describe these requirements.
We proposed to add a definition of the term
In the proposed rule, we noted that current science does not consider stability estimates based on potency tests conducted at the beginning and end of dating (that is, a two-point profile) to be either accurate or precise. A two point profile will determine a fixed line, but if a stability profile is non-linear, two points are inadequate to estimate the profile. Further, to estimate the precision even of a straight line would require at least three points. For this reason we proposed to amend § 114.13 to require testing of serials or subserials using a stability-indicating assay on multiple occasions throughout the predicted dating period, and to add a definition of the term
Two commenters stated that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) incorrectly cited the International Cooperation on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH) guidelines in support of the proposed rule. The commenters stated that of the five VICH guidelines that address stability, only one, VICH GL 17, Stability Testing of Biotechnological/Biological Veterinary Medicinal Products, addresses biological products, and it only applies to well-characterized proteins and polypeptides, and their derivatives. The commenters also noted that VICH GL 17 specifically excludes conventional vaccines.
VICH is a project conducted under the World Organization for Animal Health that brings together the regulatory authorities of the European Union, Japan, and the United States and representatives from the animal health industry in the three regions. Regulatory authorities and industry experts from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand participate as observers. The purpose of VICH is to harmonize technical requirements for veterinary medicinal products (both pharmaceuticals and biologics).
The commenters' characterization of VICH GL 17 is correct; the scope of those guidelines is limited to biotechnological/biological products and therefore they exclude conventional vaccines and numerous other products. However, the suggestion that APHIS proposed to apply the guidelines for biotechnological/biological products inappropriately to conventional vaccines is mistaken. We did not cite any VICH guidelines as a basis for the proposed rule. Rather, in the economic analysis that accompanied the proposed rule, we stated that the proposed changes were consistent with VICH recommendations, and we continue to believe that this statement is correct. We note that neither the VICH guidelines nor our regulations give specific, step-by-step directions for determining stability, nor is this rule intended to provide such directions. Instead, we state that expiration dating period (stability) of a product should be confirmed by conducting a real-time stability study with a stability-indicating assay.
Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition and its use in § 114.13 would require potency tests to be quantitative. The commenters noted that the potency tests for many licensed products, some of which are codified in the regulations, are not quantitative. The commenters stated that this change would force licensees to develop and validate additional assays for many products and would create conflicts with the existing regulations. One commenter stated that developing these additional assays would be expensive, would not improve the quality of the products, would divert resources from new product development, and could lead to some products being discontinued. Another commenter stated that it was unclear why non-quantitative assays are being excluded, because in many cases these assays are sufficient to determine whether or not a product has remained potent throughout the dating period.
The rule calls for a stability-indicating assay, which is one that can detect changes over time. Non-quantitative assays are not stability-indicating because they cannot detect changes over time. However, in response to these comments, we have amended § 114.13 to allow the use of codified potency tests that are not quantitative but that are included in the filed Outline of Production.
APHIS does not agree that manufacturers will need to divert resources from developing new products to develop additional assays because this final rule will not require changes to biological products that are currently licensed. In other words, the new requirement is not retroactive for prior approved products, and we believe that manufacturers will incorporate new assay development into their new product development process. We have addressed this concern in detail in the economic analysis that accompanies this final rule.
One commenter stated that in the definition of
APHIS agrees with the commenter. We have amended § 114.13 to limit the requirement to potency. We have also amended the definition of
Two commenters expressed concern about how the rule would apply to unlicensed products that have already completed extensive development, and stated that products in development should be treated the same as licensed products.
APHIS agrees with the commenters that products that have already completed a certain amount of development should receive some consideration. In response to this comment, we have amended § 114.13 to allow a product in development with an approved potency assay to use that assay to complete its initial confirmation of dating study.
One commenter asked about how the proposed rule would apply to diagnostic test kits. The commenter stated that most test kits are interpreted by qualitative means, such as a visual assessment of a reaction. The commenter stated further that a quantitative result is not needed because these test kits do not report a concentration or titer.
The provisions of this rule do not apply to diagnostic test kits. We have amended the regulatory text in § 114.13 to clarify this.
We proposed to require that the expiration date of a serial be computed from the date of the initiation of the first potency test of the serial. One commenter asked that we change this provision to allow the expiration date to be calculated from a date of or prior to the date of the initiation of the first potency test. The commenter stated that this would allow assignment of expiration dates based on manufacturing activities (such as final formulation) that precede initiation of the first potency test. The commenter further stated that in many cases, this would be a more efficient practice for a manufacturer and would also ensure that serial expiration dating does not exceed that calculated from the date of the first potency test.
APHIS agrees with the commenter. In response to this request, we have amended § 114.12 to allow the expiration date to be computed from a date no later than the date of the initiation of the first potency test.
We proposed to require stability studies to begin on the day of filling or final formulation. Some commenters stated that the requirement to start on a single specific day was impractical and too restrictive.
In response to this comment, we have changed the requirement for testing sequences in § 114.13 to indicate that the first test in the sequence shall be as close as practical to the day of filling into final containers or the date of final formulation if the potency of the product is tested in bulk form.
Some commenters stated that the testing intervals for in vitro tests in § 114.13(a) and for animal tests in § 114.13(b) require too much testing.
The sequence of intervals for in vitro tests is designed to allow estimation of the potency profile. It is typical of the contemporary approach to product shelf life assessment and has been adopted under various regulatory systems throughout the world. Furthermore, in many cases the number of serials that would be tested under the amended regulations is fewer than are used under the current regulations, so the total number of tests would be approximately the same, but the resulting data would be more informative. In response to the comments, we have clarified the provisions in the final rule for those situations when animal testing would be allowed. Specifically, we have clarified that in those cases where animal testing would be necessary, the tests would be of three serials at the start and end of the proposed dating period. This will effectively reduce the number of animal tests required as compared to the original proposal.
One commenter expressed concern that the changes would require the use of more animal tests, contrary to APHIS' commitment to reduce, refine, and replace the use of animals in testing.
APHIS disagrees that the rule will require more animal testing. On the contrary, by calling for stability-indicating assays, it discourages the use of animal tests, since most stability-indicating assays are in vitro tests conducted without animals. As explained above, however, we have clarified the requirements for situations when animal testing would be allowed.
Some commenters noted that the rule does not include the statistical criteria that the agency might use to evaluate stability studies. One of the commenters stated that the proposal did not provide guidance on statistical methodology. Another commenter expressed concern that the testing requirements could be unreasonably burdensome and that if a licensee is required to have an extremely high statistical certainty, they might have to increase the potency of the product, which could lead to safety problems.
The current regulations require that licensees and permittees conduct stability studies. We proposed to amend the regulations to provide information that is lacking in the current regulations on how to conduct stability studies. We did not recommend that the potency of a product ever be increased. In fact, a more precise understanding of a vaccine's potency could allow a manufacturer to reduce the formulated potency of a vaccine while verifying that it would maintain adequate potency throughout its shelf life.
When providing guidance on methodology for implementing a codified rule, APHIS follows its usual practice of including such information in published guidance documents. Draft guidance documents are posted on the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) website for comment. The policy on posting draft documents and instructions for commenting on them are described in CVB Notice No. 05-16, available online at
A commenter stated that, as proposed, the rule does not establish a uniform standard and that a number of items, including threshold values of confidence intervals or prediction intervals, interpretation of continuous or categorical data sets, and testing intervals for post-licensure monitoring vs. licensing studies should be addressed in the regulations.
APHIS disagrees with the commenter. The rule establishes a uniform standard for the design of stability studies. It does not include detailed methodological procedures for technical statistical methods which must be tailored to the data at hand. The information the commenter cited is typically covered in guidance documents. As we discussed above, these guidance documents are made available on the APHIS website for review by stakeholders before they are finalized.
One commenter stated that the requirement that manufacturers submit a plan to monitor the stability of their products and the suitability of the dating periods for those products and that the plan includes regularly testing serials for potency with stability-indicating assays is too vague.
APHIS disagrees. The expectation that product stability should be monitored by a routine ongoing program is not unusual in the modern manufacturing environment. That expectation is clearly stated in the rule; however, the rule also allows the manufacturer the flexibility to design a program that meets the needs of the particular product.
Some commenters expressed concern that the rule would prevent manufacturers from developing new products because the new requirements would require them to test every serial of a vaccine for stability.
The rule does not require that every serial of a vaccine be tested for stability. We proposed in § 114.13(a) that at least three production serials be tested. That requirement now appears in § 114.13(e) but is otherwise unchanged.
A commenter expressed concern that the rule could be applied retroactively to any licensed product at any time.
The rule does not apply retroactively. As we explained in the proposed rule, the new requirements apply to licensed products with a completed stability study only if the manufacturer makes a change to one of the stability criteria, such as the dating period, or a major change to the product or its potency test.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
We are amending the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act regulations concerning expiration dates for serials and subserials and the determination of the dating period (stability) of veterinary biological products. This rule will establish a uniform standard in stability testing for confirming the dating period and expiration date requirements. The changes will clarify and streamline the current regulations to ensure supplies of pure, safe, potent, and effective veterinary biological products.
This rule will affect all veterinary biologics licensees (manufacturers of veterinary biologics) and permittees (importers of veterinary biologics). Currently, there are approximately 100 veterinary biological establishments, including permittees. Among these veterinary biological establishments, 53 veterinary vaccine manufacturers and permittees hold 1,378 vaccine licenses.
The annual value of veterinary biological product shipments averaged between $4.3 billion and $4.4 billion, 2010-2013, having grown from $2.3 billion in 2006. U.S. exports of veterinary vaccines showed a substantial increase between 2006 and 2013, from $291 million in 2006 to $861 million in 2013. U.S. imports of veterinary vaccines are small; on average, $5.5 million of veterinary vaccines were imported annually from 2006 to 2013, resulting in a large trade surplus (exports minus imports) in the veterinary vaccine trade. In 2013, the United States was the largest exporter of veterinary vaccines in the world, followed by the Netherlands and Belgium.
This rule will help veterinary biologics manufacturers establish the best method for confirming stability. The rule aims to enable these manufacturers to take advantage of scientific advances and readily respond to changing international technical standards in the global market.
Over a 3-year period from 2012 through 2014, we received 76 reports from manufacturers that contained 192 vaccine stability studies. Based on the specific tests conducted in these stability studies, we estimate the costs associated with the current requirements, costs associated with the new requirements, and costs manufacturers actually incurred in conducting these 192 studies. We estimate that the annual total cost to the industry of stability studies under the current requirements is about $847,000 and the annual total cost to the industry under the new requirements will be about $858,000, that is, an annual cost increase of about $11,000 to the industry.
We note that the 3-year data show that manufacturers actually conducted more testing than is required under either the current or new requirements; we estimate that the manufacturers incurred costs totaling about $1,689,000 annually, which is $831,000 more than what the new requirements are estimated to cost. To provide context on industry effects, if establishments were to limit themselves to the new requirements, which are aligned with contemporary science and international standards, the industry may save about $831,000 annually in testing, an average of about $15,700 per establishment (based on 53 manufacturers). We anticipate that industry will follow the new requirements, although some firms may elect to perform more testing than required by APHIS in order to satisfy the regulatory requirements of other countries. In addition to the aforementioned annual costs, we expect that the industry will incur one-time costs that are necessary to understand the new requirements, train employees, and update policies and procedures accordingly.
According to the Small Business Administration size standards, most veterinary biologics manufacturers are small entities with no more than 500 employees. We expect that the estimated annual costs for the industry will not cause significant economic impacts for most veterinary biologics licensees and permittees, based on the estimated $11,000 annual cost increase to the industry (about $200 annual cost increase per manufacturer or permittee).
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with States and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies where they are necessary to address local disease conditions or eradication programs. However, where safety, efficacy, purity, and potency of biological products are concerned, it is the Agency's intent to occupy the field. This includes, but is not limited to, the regulation of labeling. Under the Act, Congress clearly intended that there be national uniformity in the regulation of these products. There are no administrative proceedings which must be exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the regulations under this rule.
This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal biologics.
Animal biologics, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 101 and 114 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(s)
21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Unless otherwise provided for in a Standard Requirement or filed Outline of Production, each serial or subserial of a biological product prepared in a licensed establishment shall be given an expiration date according to the dating period of the product when computed from a date no later than the date of the initiation of the first potency test of the serial or subserial. A licensed biological product shall be considered worthless under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act after the expiration date appearing on the label.
The following requirements do not apply to those biological products used for diagnostic purposes.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) If the potency test specified in the filed Outline of Production of a licensed product is the one stated in the regulations, that potency test may be used in place of a stability-indicating assay for that fraction.
(2) If the initial confirmation of dating study of a product in development on April 13, 2018 has an approved potency assay, that assay may be used.
(e)
(f)
(2)
(ii) One test every 6 months during the second year of storage; and
(iii) One test annually thereafter throughout the proposed dating period.
(3)
(g)
(1) Newly licensed products whose dating has not been confirmed;
(2) Licensed products with confirmed dating but a major change to the product or to the potency test has occurred; and
(3) Licensed products with confirmed dating in which a change in one or more of the stability criteria is requested.
(h)
(i)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a final order entitled “Medical Devices; Hematology and Pathology Devices; Classification of Lynch Syndrome Test Systems” that appeared in the
Effective March 14, 2018.
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy and Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg, 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.
In the
1. On page 8355, in the third column, in the header of the document, the docket number is corrected to read “FDA-2018-N-0399”.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is publishing an order granting a petition requesting exemption from premarket notification requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) denture repair kits (Product Code EBO). These devices consist of material, such as a resin monomer system of powder and liquid glues, which is intended to be applied permanently to a denture to mend cracks or breaks. This order exempts OTC denture repair kits, class II devices, from premarket notification (510(k)). This exemption from 510(k) is immediately in effect for OTC denture repair kits. FDA is publishing this order in accordance with the section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permitting the exemption of a device from the requirement to submit a 510(k).
This order is effective March 14, 2018. The exemption was applicable on January 31, 2018.
Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6527.
Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and its implementing regulations in part 807 (21 CFR part 807) require persons who propose to begin the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a device intended for human use to submit a 510(k) to FDA. The device may not be marketed until FDA finds it “substantially equivalent” within the meaning of section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a legally marketed device that does not require premarket approval.
On November 21, 1997, the President signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115), section 206 of which added section 510(m) to the FD&C Act, as amended on December 13, 2016, by the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255). Section 510(m)(1) of the FD&C Act, requires FDA to publish in the
Section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a device from premarket notification requirements on its own initiative, or upon petition of an interested person, if FDA determines that a 510(k) is not necessary to provide assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. This section requires FDA to publish in the
There are a number of factors FDA may consider to determine whether a 510(k) is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a class II device. These factors are discussed in the guidance that the Agency issued on February 19, 1998, entitled “Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from Premarket Notification, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff” (Class II 510(k) Exemption Guidance). That guidance can be obtained through the internet at
On August 22, 2017, FDA received a petition requesting an exemption from premarket notification for OTC denture repair kits. (See Docket No. FDA-2017-P-5124.) These devices are currently classified under 21 CFR 872.3570, OTC denture repair kits.
In the
FDA has assessed the need for 510(k) clearance for this type of device against the criteria laid out in the Class II 510(k) Exemption Guidance. Based on this review, FDA believes that premarket notification is not necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, as long as the device complies with existing special controls. FDA agrees that the risks posed by the device and the characteristics of the device necessary for its safe and effective performance are well established. FDA believes that changes in the device that could affect safety and effectiveness will be readily detectable by certain types of routine analysis and nonclinical testing, such as those detailed in the existing special controls. Therefore, after reviewing the petition, FDA has determined that premarket notification is not necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of OTC denture repair kits. FDA responded to the petition by letter dated January 31, 2018, to inform the petitioner of this decision within the 180-day timeframe under section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act.
This final order exempts from premarket notification an OTC denture repair kit. This device will remain subject to the class II special controls under 21 CFR 872.3570 and will be subject to the limitations of exemption found in 21 CFR 872.9.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) 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
This final order refers to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. 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 part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 872 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Direct final rule.
NARA is amending our Fees regulation to shorten the period in which people who request copies of archival records may request a refund. This shorter period is in line with other similar research and archival institutions and is designed to reduce the administrative costs of processing a large number of refund requests that fall outside the permitted bases.
This rule is effective on April 13, 2018 without further notice, unless we receive adverse written comment that warrants revision by April 3, 2018. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3095-AB95, by email at
Kimberly Keravuori, by email at
NARA is authorized by 44 U.S.C. 2116(c) to charge reproduction fees when it reproduces documents for non-Federal individuals or entities. This includes official reproductions with the
Archives' seal, reproductions of archival holdings, and reproductions of operational records. The statute authorizes NARA to recoup its costs, equipment fees, and similar expenses, and to retain the fees as part of the National Archives Trust Fund (NATF). NARA promulgated regulations at 36 CFR part 1258 to notify users of the fee structure and processes. Among these regulations is a section addressing refunds of these fees (36 CFR 1258.16). It is this provision that we are revising with this rulemaking.
Due to various factors, it is occasionally difficult for us to make a legible reproduction, particularly of old documents. We notify customers if we anticipate the reproduction will have questionable legibility and request the customer's approval to proceed with the reproduction—and the fee charges. As a result, we do not provide refunds except in special cases; primarily if we have somehow processed an order incorrectly or it contains errors. However, the regulation's refund request period is of such a length (120 days) that the NATF has been receiving a significant number of refund requests for orders that contain no errors and were processed correctly, which is causing the NATF administrative processing burdens. As a result, we are now reducing the refund request period to 30 days, which we believe will reduce the number of these other types of refund requests. A 30-day refund period is also in line with similar deadlines at other research and archival institutions that allow refund requests, such as the Library of Congress. Many such organizations do not permit refunds at all (
This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of E.O. 12866 and a significance determination was requested from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It is also not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking. As a result, this rule is also not subject to deregulatory requirements contained in E.O. 13771. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; it simply shortens the period in which people may request refunds of reproduction fees. This rule also does not have any Federalism implications.
This rule is effective upon publication for good cause as permitted by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). NARA believes that a public comment period is unnecessary as this rule merely shortens the recently added refund request period to bring it in line with similar periods at other research and archival institutions, such as the Library of Congress.
Archives and records.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NARA amends 36 CFR part 1258 as follows:
44 U.S.C. 2126(c) and 44 U.S.C. 2307.
* * * If you feel we processed your order incorrectly or it contains errors, please contact us within 30 days of your delivery date to have your issue verified. * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2018 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial quotas for North Carolina and Massachusetts.
Effective March 9, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the initial 2018 allocations were published on December 22, 2017 (82 FR 60682), and corrected January 30, 2018 (83 FR 4165).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 5,450 lb (2,472 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Massachusetts. This transfer was requested to repay landings by a North Carolina-permitted vessel that landed in Massachusetts under a safe harbor agreement. Based on the initial quotas published in the 2018 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications and subsequent adjustments, the revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2018 are now: North Carolina, 1,755,989 lb (796,503 kg); and Massachusetts, 410,192 lb (186,060 kg).
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is issuing regulations under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to implement a March 2017 recommendation by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) to amend the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). The rule implements Amendment 5 to the HMS FMP and establishes a Federal limited entry (LE) permit system for the California/Oregon large-mesh drift gillnet (DGN) fishery using standards that are very similar to those used in the existing State of California LE permit program for the DGN fishery. Amendment 5 is intended to streamline management and future decision-making by placing all aspects of DGN fishery management under MSA authority. All current California LE DGN permit holders are eligible to apply for, and receive, a Federal LE DGN permit, and no additional LE DGN permits are created under this rule. This final rule is administrative in nature and is not anticipated to result in increased activity, effort, or capacity in the fishery.
This final rule is effective on April 13, 2018.
Copies of supporting documents that were prepared for this final rule, including the Regulatory Impact Review and the proposed rule, are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Lyle Enriquez, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4025, or
The California/Oregon large-mesh DGN fishery is managed under the HMS FMP, which was prepared by the Pacific Council and implemented under the authority of the MSA by regulations at 50 CFR part 660. Although it adopted all conservation and management measures in place under various Federal statutes (
On March 12, 2017, the Pacific Council voted to recommend Amendment 5 to the HMS FMP, which establishes a LE DGN permit program under MSA authority and entitles all fishermen authorized to fish with large-mesh DGN gear under state law, as of the publication date of this final rule, to be eligible to receive a Federal LE DGN permit. On September 15, 2017, NMFS published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
On October 31, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
This rule adopts many of the current State of California management measures associated with the DGN fishery. For example, NMFS adopts current California requirements regarding the assignment of a permit (
As of the publication date of this final rule, all 70 California LE DGN permit holders are eligible to receive a Federal LE DGN permit if they have renewed their state LE DGN permit by March 31, 2018. Permit holders who fail to renew their state DGN permit by March 31, 2018, are not eligible for a Federal LE DGN permit. As of January 10, 2018, 68 permit holders have renewed their state LE DGN permit. If a state LE DGN permit was transferred after publication of the proposed rule, the transferee, but not the transferor, is eligible to receive a Federal LE DGN permit.
Federal LE DGN permits will be issued annually for the fishing year starting April 1 and ending March 31 of the following year. Permits expire on March 31 of each year and, after initial issuance (expected in 2018), the permit renewal deadline is April 30 of each fishing year. A completed LE DGN permit renewal form must be received by NMFS no later than close-of-business April 30. Any renewal form received after that date will result in the permanent expiration of the Federal LE DGN permit. A permit owner who fails to submit a renewal form by the deadline may submit a renewal form to NMFS with a written statement that the failure to renew the permit by the deadline was proximately caused by the permit owner's illness or injury. When a permit owner has died, the owner's estate or other personal representative may submit a statement explaining that the permit owner's death prevented a timely renewal. The permit holder, or in the case of a deceased permit owner, the estate or other personal representative, will need to provide written proof of illness, injury, or death. NMFS will not consider any such renewal request made after July 31. A permit holder needs to hold a Federal LE DGN permit for a vesting period of at least three years before it is eligible to be transferred. This vesting period extends across both state and Federal permit programs (
This rule also includes technical edits to existing regulatory text. These edits add the word “general” before instances of “HMS permit” to distinguish the existing HMS permit from the new LE DGN permit; update a web address from which permit applications may be obtained; update the reference to the NMFS “Southwest Region” to refer to the West Coast Region, into which it was incorporated; and update the description of the NMFS regional “Sustainable Fisheries Division” to describe it as part of the West Coast Region.
NMFS received 17 written public comments during the proposed rulemaking stage. The summarized comments and NMFS' responses are below.
No changes have been made to regulatory text of the proposed rule.
The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 5 to the HMS FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the DGN fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0204. The public reporting burden for the additional collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at:
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) A commercial fishing vessel of the United States must be registered for use under a general HMS permit that authorizes the use of specific gear, and a recreational charter vessel must be registered for use under a HMS permit if that vessel is used:
(i) To fish for HMS in the U.S. EEZ off the States of California, Oregon, and Washington; or
(ii) To land or transship HMS shoreward of the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ off the States of California, Oregon, and Washington.
(4) Only a person eligible to own a documented vessel under the terms of 46 U.S.C. 12102(a) may be issued or may hold (by ownership or otherwise) a general HMS permit.
(b) * * *
(1) Following publication of the final rule implementing the FMP, NMFS will issue general HMS permits to the owners of those vessels on a list of vessels obtained from owners previously applying for a permit under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, or whose vessels are listed on the vessel register of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
(3) An owner of a vessel subject to these requirements who has not received a permit under this section from NMFS and who wants to engage in the fisheries must apply to the SFD for the required permit in accordance with the following:
(i) A West Coast Region Federal Fisheries application form may be obtained from the SFD or downloaded from the West Coast Region home page (
(ii) A minimum of 15 days should be allowed for processing a permit application. If an incomplete or improperly completed application is filed, the applicant will be sent a notice of deficiency. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency within 30 days following the date of notification, the application will be considered abandoned.
(iii) A permit will be issued by the SFD. If an application is denied, the SFD will indicate the reasons for denial.
(iv)(A) Any applicant for an initial permit may appeal the initial issuance decision to the Regional Administrator. To be considered by the Regional Administrator, such appeal must be in writing and state the reasons for the appeal, and must be submitted within 30 days of the action by the Regional Administrator. The appellant may request an informal hearing on the appeal.
(B) Upon receipt of an appeal authorized by this section, the Regional Administrator will notify the permit applicant, or permit holder as appropriate, and will request such additional information and in such form as will allow action upon the appeal.
(C) Upon receipt of sufficient information, the Regional Administrator will decide the appeal in accordance with the permit provisions set forth in this section at the time of the application, based upon information relative to the application on file at NMFS and the Council and any additional information submitted to or obtained by the Regional Administrator, the summary record kept of any hearing and the hearing officer's recommended decision, if any, and such other considerations as the Regional Administrator deems appropriate. The Regional Administrator will notify all
(D) If a hearing is requested, or if the Regional Administrator determines that one is appropriate, the Regional Administrator may grant an informal hearing before a hearing officer designated for that purpose after first giving notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to the applicant. The appellant, and, at the discretion of the hearing officer, other interested persons, may appear personally or be represented by counsel at the hearing and submit information and present arguments as determined appropriate by the hearing officer. Within 30 days of the last day of the hearing, the hearing officer shall recommend in writing a decision to the Regional Administrator.
(E) The Regional Administrator may adopt the hearing officer's recommended decision, in whole or in part, or may reject or modify it. In any event, the Regional Administrator will notify interested persons of the decision, and the reason(s) therefore, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the hearing officer's recommended decision. The Regional Administrator's decision will constitute the final administrative action by NMFS on the matter.
(F) Any time limit prescribed in this section may be extended for a period not to exceed 30 days by the Regional Administrator for good cause, either upon his or her own motion or upon written request from the appellant stating the reason(s) therefore.
(4) General HMS permits issued under this subpart will remain valid until the first date of renewal, and permits may be subsequently renewed for 2-year terms. The first date of renewal will be the last day of the vessel owner's birth month in the second calendar year after the permit is issued (
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii) Adverse decisions shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the adverse decision.
(iii) The SFD may decline to act on an application for issuing, renewing, transferring, or assigning a limited entry permit and will notify the applicant, if the permit sanction provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1858(a) and implementing regulations at 15 CFR part 904, subpart D, apply.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i) The permit holder suffers from a serious illness or permanent disability that prevents the permit holder from earning a livelihood from commercial fishing.
(ii) If a deceased permit holder's estate or heirs submit a transfer request within six months of the permit holder's death.
(iii) Upon dissolution of marriage if the permit is held as community property.
(9)
(ii) The permit owner is responsible for renewing a limited entry permit.
(iii) The deadline for receipt or postmark of a Federal DGN permit renewal application is April 30 of the permit year (
(iv) A DGN permit that is allowed to expire will not be renewed unless the permit owner requests reissuance by July 31 (three months after the renewal application deadline) and NMFS determines that failure to renew was
(10)
(ii) A permit holder may designate another individual to fish under their permit for up to 15 days per fishing year (April 1 to March 31 of the following year); the substitute must comply with all other Federal permitting requirements. A permit holder shall notify NMFS of a substitution at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the trip.
(iii) If the person who owns a Federal DGN permit is prevented from being on-board a fishing vessel because the person died, is ill, or is injured, NMFS may allow an exemption to the owner on-board requirement for more than 15 days. The person requesting the exemption must send a letter to NMFS requesting an exemption from the owner on-board requirements, with appropriate evidence as described at paragraph (f)(10)(iv) or (v) of this section. All exemptions for death, injury, or illness will be evaluated by NMFS and a decision will be made in writing to the permit owner (or, in the case of the death of the permit owner, to the estate or heirs of the permit owner) within 60 calendar days of receipt of the original exemption request.
(iv) Evidence of death of the permit owner shall be provided to NMFS in the form of a copy of a death certificate. In the interim before the estate is settled, if the deceased permit owner was subject to the owner on-board requirements, the estate of the deceased permit owner may send a letter to NMFS with a copy of the death certificate, requesting an exemption from the owner-on-board requirements. An exemption due to death of the permit owner will be effective only until such time that the estate of the deceased permit owner has registered the deceased permit owner's permit to a beneficiary, transferred the permit to another owner, or three years after the date of death as proven by a death certificate, whichever is earliest. An exemption from the owner-on-board requirement will be conveyed in a letter from NMFS to the estate of the permit owner and is required to be on the vessel during DGN fishing operations.
(v) Evidence of illness or injury that prevents the permit owner from participating in the fishery shall be provided to NMFS in the form of a letter from a certified medical practitioner. This letter must detail the relevant medical conditions of the permit owner and how those conditions prevent the permit owner from being on-board a fishing vessel during DGN fishing. An exemption due to injury or illness will be effective only for the fishing year of the request for exemption. In order to extend a medical exemption for a succeeding year, the permit owner must submit a new request and provide documentation from a certified medical practitioner detailing why the permit owner is still unable to be on-board a fishing vessel. An exemption from the owner-on-board requirement will be conveyed in a letter from NMFS to the permit owner and is required to be on the vessel during DGN fishing operations.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 610 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 9, 2018, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 10, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 1,317 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2018 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,167 mt and is setting aside the remaining 150 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 8, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 630 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 10, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., May 31, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The B season allowance of the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 4,184 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance of the 2018 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 3,684 mt and is setting aside the remaining 500 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 8, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory issue summary; request for comment and public meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on the draft Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-22, Supplement 1, “Clarification on Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems.” This RIS Supplement clarifies the guidance in RIS 2002-22, which remains in effect. The NRC continues to endorse Nuclear Energy Institute 01-01 (NEI-01-01) as stated in RIS 2002-22, as clarified by the RIS Supplement.
Submit comments by March 29, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Tekia Govan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), telephone: 301-415-6197, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0044 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0044 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The RIS is intended for all holders of and applicants for power reactor operating licenses or construction permits under 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” all holders of, and applicants for, a power reactor combined license, standard design approval, or manufacturing license, and all applicants for a standard design certification, under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” and all holders of, and applicants for, a construction permit or an operating license for non-power production or utilization facilities under 10 CFR part 50, including all existing non-power reactors and proposed facilities for the production of medical radioisotopes, such as molybdenum-99, except those that have permanently ceased operations and have returned all of their fuel to the U.S. Department of Energy.
In 2002, the NRC staff issued RIS 2002-22 to notify addressees that the NRC staff had reviewed NEI-01-01 and was endorsing the report for use as guidance in designing and implementing digital upgrades to nuclear power plant instrumentation and control systems. Following the NRC staff's 2002 endorsement of NEI 01-01, holders of operating licenses have used this guidance in support of digital design modifications implemented without prior NRC approval in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. The NRC inspections of documentation for these activities uncovered inconsistencies in the performance and documentation of engineering evaluations and associated technical bases for determinations on the 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2) evaluation criteria. This RIS Supplement clarifies
The NRC published a notice of opportunity for public comment on this RIS in the
The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft RIS. To the extent that the NRC's revisions have not resolved a comment that was submitted in the previous comment period, the NRC asks that such comments be resubmitted for further consideration. Because of the extensive communication about this RIS, the NRC believes that stakeholders will be able to submit comments quickly. In addition, the NRC seeks to issue this RIS as expeditiously as possible to minimize misunderstandings about the NRC's requirements for digital I&C modifications under 10 CFR 50.59. Therefore, the NRC is publishing the draft RIS with a 15 day comment period. Requests for extension of the comment period may be submitted as described above in the
The NRC is also requesting specific comments on Figure 1 in the attachment of the draft RIS:
• Does Figure 1 clearly explain the engineering evaluation process (as described in Section 4 of the RIS attachment) to determine sufficient dependability, which may be used in performing and documenting a qualitative assessment (as described in Section 3 of the RIS attachment)?
• How could the figure and/or explanatory text in the draft RIS be modified to clarify the relationship between the engineering evaluation and qualitative assessment approaches described in the draft RIS?
The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to discuss this RIS and the issues associated with clarification of the applicability of the endorsed NEI 01-01 guidance. All comments that are to receive consideration in the final RIS must still be submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing rulemaking action on a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania or the Commonwealth). This revision consists of regulatory amendments intended to meet certain reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve most parts of the Pennsylvania SIP revision as meeting RACT requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve certain provisions of this SIP revision, based upon Pennsylvania's commitment to submit additional enforceable measures that meet RACT. This action is being taken under the CAA.
Written comments must be received on or before April 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290 at
Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at
On May 16, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP consisting of amendments to regulations in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129, to meet certain RACT requirements of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The Pennsylvania May 16, 2016 SIP revision submitted by PADEP includes the Pennsylvania regulations in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.96-129.100 titled “Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated a standard for ground level ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations (1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Designations included 16 nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania, with only 2 moderate nonattainment areas, namely Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (the Philadelphia Area) and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley (the Pittsburgh Area). The remaining 14 areas in Pennsylvania were designated marginal nonattainment areas.
On March 12, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone standards, by revising its level to 0.075 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). On May 21, 2012, EPA designated most areas in the country for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including 5 marginal nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania: Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Reading, the Philadelphia Area, and the Pittsburgh Area.
On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA announced its revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the country, effective on April 6, 2015. EPA also determined that certain nonattainment planning requirements continue to be in effect under the revoked standard for nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT.
The CAA regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for demonstrating attainment of all NAAQS, including emissions reductions from existing sources through adoption of RACT. Further, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth additional RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher nonattainment.
Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth three distinct requirements regarding RACT for the ozone NAAQS: First, section 182(b)(2)(A) requires states with ozone areas designated moderate or higher to submit a rule (or negative declaration) for each category of VOC sources in the nonattainment area covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued by EPA between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment for an ozone NAAQS. These rules shall be submitted as SIP revisions within the period set forth by EPA in issuing the relevant CTG document. Second, section 182(b)(2)(B) requires a rule (or negative declaration) for all VOC sources in the nonattainment area covered by any CTG issued before November 15, 1990. And third, section 182(b)(2)(C) requires a rule or rules for implementing RACT for any other major stationary sources of VOCs located in the nonattainment area.
In addition, section 182(f) subjects major stationary sources of NO
Pursuant to section 183(c) of the CAA, EPA must revise and update CTGs and Alternative Control Techniques guidelines (ACTs) as the Administrator determines necessary. EPA's CTGs establish presumptive RACT level control requirements for various source categories. The CTGs usually identify a particular control level which EPA recommends as being RACT. In some cases, EPA has issued ACTs for source categories, which in contrast to the CTGs, only present a range for possible control options but do not identify any particular option as the presumptive norm for what is RACT. States are required to address RACT for the source categories covered by CTGs through adoption of rules as part of the SIP.
Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA applies the RACT requirements in section 182(b)(2) for moderate nonattainment areas to nonattainment areas classified as marginal and to attainment areas located within ozone transport regions established pursuant to section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(a) of the CAA established by law the current Ozone Transport Region (the OTR) comprised of 12 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. The requirement in section 184(b)(1)(B) is referred to as OTR RACT. A “major source” is defined based on the source's potential to emit (PTE) of NO
Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined RACT as the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.
EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as through guidance. In 2004 and 2005, EPA promulgated an implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in two phases (“Phase 1 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule” and “Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule”).
On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (“the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule”).
In addressing RACT, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule is consistent with existing policy and Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule. In the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA requires RACT measures to be implemented by January 1, 2017 for areas classified as moderate nonattainment or above and all areas of the OTR. EPA also provided in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment area covered by a specific CTG source category. In the preamble to the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified that states must provide notice and opportunity for public comment on their RACT SIP submissions, even when submitting a certification that the existing provisions remain RACT or a negative declaration. States must submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions, in accordance with the Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule. Adequate documentation must support that states have considered control technology that is economically and technologically feasible in determining RACT, based on information that is current as of the time of development of the RACT SIP.
In addition, in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified that states can use weighted average NO
As indicated earlier, RACT requirements apply to any ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher (serious, severe or extreme) under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Pennsylvania has outstanding ozone RACT requirements for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR established under section 184 of the CAA and thus is subject statewide to the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), pursuant to section 184(b).
At the time of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (effective April 6, 2015), only two moderate nonattainment areas remained in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for this standard, the Philadelphia and the Pittsburgh Areas. As required under EPA's anti-backsliding provisions, these two moderate nonattainment areas continue to be subject to RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given its location in the OTR, the remainder of the Commonwealth is also treated as moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for any planning requirements under the revoked standard, including RACT. The OTR RACT requirement is also in effect under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the Commonwealth, since EPA did not designate any nonattainment areas above marginal for this standard in Pennsylvania. Thus, in practice, the same RACT requirements continue to be applicable in Pennsylvania for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. RACT must be evaluated and satisfied as separate requirements under each applicable standard.
RACT applies to major sources of NO
States were required to make RACT SIP submissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by September 15, 2006. PADEP submitted a SIP revision on September 25, 2006, certifying that a number of previously approved VOC CTG and non-CTG RACT rules continued to satisfy RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the remainder of Pennsylvania.
For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states were required to submit RACT SIP revisions by July 20, 2014. On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the May 16, 2016 SIP submittal intends to satisfy sections 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184 of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Pennsylvania's major NO
This notice includes EPA's rationale for proposing rulemaking action on the Pennsylvania May 16, 2016 SIP revision for purposes of meeting these RACT requirements under the CAA. EPA prepared two technical support documents (TSDs) in support of this proposed rulemaking action: “Technical Support Document for the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan Revision for Certain Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” and “Technical Support Document for the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan Revision for Certain Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards- Cost Effective Analyses for Coal Fired Boilers.” For further details on this proposed rulemaking action, please refer to these TSDs, which are included as part of this rulemaking docket and are available online at
The RACT II Rule applies statewide to existing major NO
The RACT II Rule requirements apply to any emissions unit or process at an affected major source having a PTE of 1 ton per year (TPY) or more of NO
The RACT II Rule permits an affected major source that needs additional time to install an air pollution control device to meet the requirements under the RACT II Rule to petition PADEP for an alternative compliance schedule. The RACT II Rule also allows an owner or operator of a major source to petition an alternative compliance schedule if it needs additional time to install an air pollution control device on an affected emissions unit in order to comply with the RACT II requirements. These provisions allow the owner or operator in this situation to petition in writing for an alternative compliance schedule, by proposing an interim emission limit, and a later compliance date to implement such control device “as soon as possible but not later than 3 years after the written approval of the petition.” EPA believes that the language in the rule allows for Pennsylvania's implementation of RACT controls as expeditiously as practicable.
Section 129.97 of the RACT II Rule establishes NO
In evaluating whether controls and emission limitations meet RACT, EPA generally considers controls that have been achieved in practice by other similar existing sources to be technologically and economically feasible. For that reason, to evaluate PADEP's RACT determinations under the RACT II Rule, EPA reviewed NO
EPA further evaluated the NO
Pursuant to 25 Pa. Code section 129.97(g)(4), any combustion unit firing multiple fuels and subject to different presumptive limits for each fuel, must comply with a single NO
Affected major sources subject to the presumptive requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 129.97 that cannot comply with the applicable presumptive NO
The NO
Under 25 Pa. Code section 129.99, the owner or operator of an affected major NO
Section 129.99 outlines a common procedure for proposing a source-specific RACT limit, whether proposed as an alternative under section 129.99(a) or as required under section 129.99(b)-(c). A written RACT proposal under section 129.99 must be submitted to PADEP or local agency for any affected emissions units with PTE of 5.0 TPY or more of NO
The RACT II Rule contains certain ancillary provisions to ensure RACT level of control for sources that have been previously subject to RACT or are subject to other federally enforceable requirements. Section 129.97(i) of the RACT II Rule provides that the presumptive requirements in section 129.97 will supersede any RACT requirements of a “RACT permit” issued prior April 23, 2016 under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91-95, unless the RACT permit contains more stringent requirements. “RACT permits” under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91-95 were submitted by Pennsylvania as SIP revisions and, if determined to meet RACT, were approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d). Section 129.99(k) of the RACT II Rule provides that any source-specific requirements approved under section 129.99 will supersede any similar NO
25 Pa. Code section 129.100 of the RACT II Rule establishes compliance demonstration and recordkeeping requirements for affected sources. Specific monitoring and testing requirements are established for sources complying with presumptive RACT requirements under section 129.97. Recordkeeping requirements are established under section 129.100(d) for any affected sources under the RACT II Rule.
Additional compliance demonstration requirements for NO
Any definitions related to the RACT II Rule are codified in 25 Pa. Code section 121.1. The May 16, 2016 SIP revision included amendments to
EPA finds that the presumptive requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 129.97 represent RACT for the NO
Additional details of Pennsylvania's SIP submission and EPA's reasoning for proposing approval of this SIP revision can be found in the “Technical Support Document for the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan Revision for Certain Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” prepared for this rulemaking action and available online at
EPA identified deficiencies in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99, respectively, that prevent full approval of the RACT II Rule SIP revision. The NO
The lack of specificity in 25 Pa. Code section 129.98 allows certain unbounded discretion in determining an alternative NO
Further, EPA has long interpreted the RACT requirement of the CAA to mean states must adopt and submit regulations that include emission limitations
With respect to 25 Pa. Code section 129.99 for source-specific RACT, EPA finds that the generic process to subsequently establish source-specific RACT emissions limits is deficient, because it lacks a date certain by which Pennsylvania must submit the relevant source-specific RACT SIP revisions to EPA to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. According to EPA's longstanding policy, such “generic rule” or process cannot fully satisfy RACT, in the absence of the submitted emission limitations.
Further, EPA finds that the RACT II Rule does not specify compliance demonstration requirements for sources choosing to meet RACT by complying with NO
On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental document to EPA that included PADEP's specific commitments to address the deficiencies in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99. PADEP committed to submit to EPA, within 12 months of EPA's final rulemaking action, additional SIP revisions that include the portions of enforceable permits containing the terms and conditions relevant for compliance with section 129.98, which would include the alternative NO
EPA finds Pennsylvania's commitments adequately address the deficiencies noted in this rulemaking action for 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 and are a sufficient basis for EPA to propose conditional approval of these provisions as meeting RACT for sources seeking a NO
In this event, EPA will send a letter to the state finding that it had failed to meet its commitment and that the SIP submittal is disapproved. Subsequently, a disapproval notice will be published in the
In addition, where the state does make a complete submittal by the end of the 1-year period, EPA will have to evaluate that submittal to determine if it may be approved and take final action on the submittal within 12 months after the date EPA determines the submittal is complete. If the submittal does not adequately address the deficiencies that were the subject of the conditional approval, and is therefore not approvable, EPA will go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to disapprove the submittal. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the 2-year clock for a FIP start as of the date of final disapproval. If EPA determines that the rule is approvable, EPA will propose approval of the rule. In either instance, whether EPA finally approves or disapproves the rule, the conditional approval remains in effect until EPA takes its final action.
By conditionally approving 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99, EPA would ensure that adequate RACT limits are established in addition to or as alternative to the presumptive RACT requirements of 25 Pa. Code section 129.97. Additional compliance demonstration requirements would also be approved into the SIP for sources complying with either 25 Pa. Code section 129.98 or 129.99, which would ensure adequate federal and practical enforceability of any additional RACT limits under the RACT II Rule for compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, with EPA's conditional approval of these requirements, EPA would set a specific schedule for producing enforceable RACT measures, resulting in more timely implementation of RACT controls in Pennsylvania than would otherwise occur if EPA was to disapprove these provisions and require a federal plan for control.
Conditional approval of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 should not result in the approved portions of the RACT II Rule being any more stringent than anticipated or intended by Pennsylvania. 25 Pa. Code 129.99 requires source-specific RACT to receive EPA approval and required sources complying with these requirements to submit an alternative proposal to PADEP by a date certain which has already passed. In addition, compliance with 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 is intended in most cases as an alternative option for affected sources that are unable to comply with the established presumptive RACT emissions requirements under section 129.97. The presumptive RACT requirements in section 129.97 remain applicable unless and until a source receives approval of an alternative RACT limit (under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99) and EPA approves such alternative RACT limits into the Pennsylvania SIP. Further, PADEP's September 22, 2017 commitments confirm PADEP's intention to submit alternative RACT limits under 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 to EPA for SIP approval. The submission of any alternative RACT requirement approved by Pennsylvania as a SIP revision will not supplant the presumptive RACT requirements for purposes of Federal enforceability unless and until the alternative is fully approved by EPA into the SIP.
In conclusion, EPA is proposing conditional approval under CAA section 110(k)(4) only of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 of the RACT II Rule
EPA's review of the Pennsylvania May 16, 2016 SIP submittal indicates that certain portions of the submittal are adequate to meet RACT requirements under the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to fully approve into the SIP the provisions in 25 Pa. Code sections 129.96-129.97, and 129.100 of the RACT II Rule and relevant definitions in 25 Pa. Code section 121.1, adopted by Pennsylvania on April 23, 2016, as meeting RACT for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. These provisions are adequate to meet the ozone-specific RACT requirements of sections 172, 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184 of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for specific NO
In addition, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99, as these provisions provide alternative RACT requirements which require further PADEP and EPA action in order to meet RACT requirements under the CAA. The provisions of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.98 and 129.99 will become fully approvable, if PADEP submits to EPA, within 12 months of EPA's final action, additional SIP revisions that include any alternative NO
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the regulatory provisions of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.96-129.100 of the RACT II Rule and related amendments of 25 Pa Code section 121.1, as adopted by Pennsylvania on April 23, 2016. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, concerning Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone reasonably available control technology for certain major NOx and VOC sources, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
We will accept comments on the draft PDM plan for black-capped vireo until April 13, 2018.
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Debra Bills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Ecological Services Field Office (see
The black-capped vireo is an insectivorous songbird that breeds in Oklahoma, Texas, and northern Mexico, and winters along the western coastal states of Mexico. The vireo was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
On December 15, 2016, we published a proposed rule to remove the black-capped vireo from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) (81 FR 90762). Our proposed rule was based largely on the Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report, which characterized the overall species' viability in the future. In the SSA Report, the impact of brown-headed cowbird parasitism on certain locations was expressed in terms of sustainability and expansion of populations. Additionally, the black-capped vireo was identified as “conservation-reliant” due to successful recovery actions being implemented, largely cowbird management. In this document, we provide clarification to the information regarding cowbird management.
The Service believes cowbird management was a major factor leading to the recovery of the species, and the importance of cowbird management was discussed in the SSA Report. Particularly, the black-capped vireo population in Oklahoma and localities in the eastern portion of the Texas range may be reliant on cowbird management periodically, or perpetually, to ensure minimal losses of current population numbers. In this regard, we assume the species may be “conservation reliant,” due to efforts necessary to retain healthy shrublands and reduce brown-headed cowbird parasitism under certain conditions in portions of the range. Based on the comprehensive information collected for the SSA Report, there is inherent uncertainty in forecasting future threats and population status scenarios over a 50-year timeframe. To address this uncertainty and ensure that the black-capped vireo continues to prosper, the SSA Report noted the importance of continued management of known populations of the species. To further this recommendation, the Service has obtained mutual commitments with many of our partners in the form of cooperative management agreements or other strategies to continue to manage known populations of the black-capped vireo and implement the PDM plan. These cooperative management agreements are included in the PDM plan, and provide assurances that PDM will detect trends in the black-capped vireo status and threats and the species' biological status will continue to improve.
In addition, we have corrected errors in Table 14 of the SSA Report (page 105). This table presented the results of forecast scenarios under short- and long-term managed and unmanaged conditions from Table 13, which is correct. Among the corrections to Table 14 was the shifting of one “likely resilient locality” in the short-term worst-case scenario between recovery units, and identifying one less “manageable locality” in the long-term worst-case scenario. These corrections do not change the results of the SSA analysis. The SSA with the corrected table is included in the docket (FWS-R2-ES-2016-0110) for the proposed rule on
For more background information on the black-capped vireo, refer to our Black-capped Vireo Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report available in the docket (FWS-R2-ES-2016-0110) for the proposed rule on
The Act, section 4(g)(1), requires us to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to effectively monitor the status of each species we remove from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants due to recovery. The monitoring must occur for at least 5 years. The PDM's purpose is to verify that a species we delist due to recovery remains secure from risk of extinction after we remove the Act's protections.
To fulfill the PDM requirement, we drafted a black-capped vireo monitoring plan in cooperation with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Fort Hood and Fort Sill Military Installations, and The Nature Conservancy of Texas. Over a 12-year period, we propose to monitor abundance trends at managed localities with known populations of greater than 30 adult male vireos, estimate population trends at 4 major localities, and monitor the residual threats of brown-headed cowbird parasitism, land
Abundance monitoring would focus on known black-capped vireo localities under some form of management and for which the SSA Report forecasted future persistence. Through monitoring these localities, we can track abundance trends and compare those to the SSA Report forecasts. Additionally, four major localities with several years of population trend data will continue to be monitored to detect changes in trends over the 12-year period. In conjunction with abundance monitoring, a subset of vireo nests will be monitored to determine brown-headed cowbird parasitism rates at these localities. The PDM plan defines monitoring thresholds which, if reached, may result in additional actions. The monitoring thresholds are based on maintaining resiliency, redundancy, and representation, as described in the black-capped vireo SSA Report. Land use trends, livestock, and deer within the vireo's range will also be monitored to ensure we detect changes that may affect the species.
The draft PDM plan includes both interim and final reporting requirements. If PDM results in a concern regarding the vireo's status or increasing threats, possible responses may include an extended or intensified monitoring effort, additional research, or an increased effort to improve habitat and reduce the threat. If future information collected from the PDM, or any other reliable source, indicates an increased likelihood that the species may become in danger of extinction, we will initiate a black-capped vireo status review and determine if re-listing the species is warranted.
In addition to public review of the draft PDM plan, we are requesting independent expert peer review from knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that includes knowledge of song bird ecology and conservation biology principles. Draft PDM plan peer review is in accordance with our policy “Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,” published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270).
Comments and materials we receive from the public and peer reviewers, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the draft PDM plan, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arlington Ecological Services Field Office (see
We intend for our final PDM plan to be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or suggestions on this black-capped vireo draft PDM plan from the public, concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party. We will take into consideration substantive comments we receive by the comment due date (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire document—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The primary authors of this document are staff at the Arlington Ecological Services Field Office (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability (NOA); request for comments.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) and Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) have submitted the For-hire Reporting Amendment for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. The For-hire Reporting Amendment includes Amendment 27 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources of the Gulf and Atlantic Region (CMP FMP), Amendment 9 to the FMP for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States (Dolphin Wahoo FMP), and Amendment 39 to the FMP for Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP). If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the For-hire Reporting Amendment would establish new, and revise existing, electronic reporting requirements for federally permitted charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels), respectively. The For-hire Reporting Amendment would require a charter vessel with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Atlantic CMP, Atlantic dolphin and wahoo, or South Atlantic snapper-grouper species to submit an electronic fishing report weekly, or at shorter intervals if notified by NMFS, through NMFS approved hardware and software. The For-hire Reporting Amendment would also reduce the time allowed for headboats to submit an electronic fishing report. The purpose of the For-hire Reporting Amendment is to increase and improve fisheries information collected from federally permitted for-hire vessels in the Atlantic. The information is expected to improve recreational fisheries management of the for-hire component in the Atlantic.
Written comments on the For-hire Reporting Amendment must be received by May 13, 2018.
You may submit comments on the For-hire Reporting Amendment, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0152,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the For-hire Reporting Amendment may be obtained from
Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMPs being revised by the For-hire Reporting Amendment were prepared by the South Atlantic Council and the Gulf Council, and the For-hire Reporting Amendment, if approved, would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and regional fishery management councils prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act states that the collection of reliable data is essential to the effective conservation, management, and scientific understanding of the nation's fishery resources.
On July 1, 2012, NMFS implemented management measures contained in Amendment 18A to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, which established a provision that allowed the Science Research Director (SRD) at the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) to require for-hire vessels fishing for snapper-grouper species, when selected by the SRD, to submit fishing reports electronically on a weekly or daily basis to the SEFSC to better improve data on catch and bycatch (77 FR 32408, June 1, 2012). However, upon implementation of Amendment 18A in 2012, a data system to collect electronic reports had not been developed and no vessels were selected by the SEFSC for electronic reporting. Therefore, both prior to and after the implementation of Amendment 18A, only paper logbook forms were used to collect fishing reports from selected for-hire vessels.
In 2013, an electronic logbook reporting requirement for federally permitted headboats fishing for Atlantic CMP, dolphin and wahoo, and snapper-grouper species was implemented by the final rule for Amendment 22 to the CMP FMP, Amendment 6 to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP, and Amendment 31 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP (collectively referred to as the Headboat Reporting Amendment) to improve the quality and timeliness of catch data (78 FR 78779, December 27, 2013). The final rule for the Headboat Reporting Amendment required all headboats with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Atlantic CMP, Atlantic dolphin and wahoo, or South Atlantic snapper-grouper species to report landings electronically on a weekly basis to the SEFSC. The final rule also implemented a provision that authorizes NMFS to require reporting more frequently than weekly if notified by the SRD, and prohibits headboats from continuing to fish if they are delinquent in submitting reports. This headboat reporting program, called the Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS), is managed and operated by the SEFSC. Currently, headboats submit an electronic fishing report to NMFS via the internet by the Sunday following the end of each reporting week, which runs from Monday through Sunday. The For-hire Reporting Amendment would shorten the time to report and proposes that headboats submit electronic fishing reports to NMFS by the Tuesday following the end of a reporting week, which would make the reporting deadline for headboats consistent with the proposed reporting deadline for federally permitted charter vessels. The South Atlantic Council believes that changing the timing of reporting would achieve consistency between federally permitted headboats and the proposed charter vessel reporting requirements. In addition, the South Atlantic Council believes that the shortened window for reporting could reduce recall bias and improve the timeliness of data availability.
Similarly, the For-hire Reporting Amendment also would require that information from a federally permitted charter vessel be reported weekly, through the submission of electronic fishing reports on Tuesday following a reporting week. Currently, landings and discards from federally permitted charter vessels in Atlantic CMP, Atlantic dolphin wahoo, and South Atlantic snapper-grouper fisheries are monitored through the survey of charter vessels by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Fishing effort is calculated based on a monthly phone sample of federally permitted charter vessels, though the phone survey is transitioning to a new mail survey. Catch rate observations and catch sampling are provided through dockside monitoring, also conducted by MRIP. This MRIP charter vessel information is then available in 2-month increments known as waves, so that there are six waves during the calendar year,
Accurate and reliable fisheries information about catch, effort, and discards is critical to stock assessment and management evaluations. In addition, catch from federally permitted charter vessels represents a substantial portion of the total recreational catch for some South Atlantic Council managed fish species, such as king mackerel, black sea bass, dolphin, and wahoo. The South Atlantic Council believes that weekly electronic reporting for federally permitted charter vessels could provide more timely information than the current MRIP survey, and more accurate and reliable information for many species with low catches, low annual catch limits, or for species that are only rarely encountered by fishery participants. However, the South Atlantic Council recognizes that before the electronic reporting program described in this amendment could replace the MRIP survey program, the individual states would have to implement a similar for-hire electronic reporting requirement. The South Atlantic Council has determined that weekly electronic reporting by all federally permitted charter vessels would be expected to enhance data collection efforts for potentially better fisheries management, such as through more data-rich stock assessments.
The For-hire Reporting Amendment includes actions to establish weekly electronic reporting for federally permitted charter vessels in the previously described Atlantic fisheries, and change the electronic reporting deadline for federally permitted headboats. The For-hire Reporting Amendment would also require an owner or operator of a federally permitted charter vessel to report their fishing locations to the nearest square nautical mile, or in degrees and minutes.
In the For-hire Reporting Amendment, the South Atlantic Council has stated their need for increased data collection from federally permitted charter vessels, such as reporting fishing locations, compared with what the MRIP survey currently provides, as well as more timely data submission. The South Atlantic Council has determined that weekly reporting by federally permitted charter vessels could make data available to the science and management process more quickly and could improve data accuracy, as reports would be completed shortly after each trip. The For-hire Reporting Amendment would require an owner or operator of a charter vessel with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Atlantic CMP species, Atlantic dolphin and wahoo, or South Atlantic snapper-grouper to submit an electronic fishing report to NMFS weekly, or at intervals shorter than a week if notified by the SRD, regardless if they were fishing in state or Federal waters, or what species they caught. The use of NMFS approved hardware and software would be required to submit weekly electronic fishing reports by the Tuesday following each reporting week.
If the For-hire Reporting Amendment is approved and implemented, a federally permitted charter vessel fishing for Atlantic CMP, or dolphin and wahoo, or South Atlantic snapper-grouper species would be required to submit an electronic fishing report using hardware and software that meets NMFS technical requirements and has been type approved by NMFS. NMFS approved hardware could include electronic devices such as computers, tablets, and smartphones that allow for internet access and are capable of operating approved software. NMFS is currently evaluating potential software applications for the electronic for-hire reporting program and is considering the use of existing software applications already being used by partners in the region, including e-trips online and e-trips mobile, which are products developed by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. Hardware and software that meet the NMFS type approval would be posted on the NMFS Southeast Region website upon publication of any final rule to implement the for-hire electronic reporting program.
An electronic fishing report would be required from a charter vessel regardless of where fishing occurs or which species are caught or harvested. For example, a vessel subject to these proposed requirements under a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Atlantic CMP, Atlantic dolphin wahoo, or South Atlantic snapper-grouper must report if they fish in state waters, in the Gulf, or in any other area. If a charter vessel does not fish during a week, submission of a “no-fishing” report would be required by the Tuesday of the following week. The SEFSC would allow an advance submission of a no-fishing report for up to 30 days, as they currently allow for headboats.
In an effort to reduce duplicative reporting by charter vessels, fishermen with Federal charter vessel/headboat permits subject to electronic reporting requirements in other regions, such as the Mid-Atlantic and as proposed by the Gulf Council for the Gulf, would be required to comply with the electronic reporting program that is more restrictive, regardless of where fishermen are fishing. For example, the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) has implemented an electronic reporting requirement for owners and operators of a charter vessel or party boat (headboat) issued a Federal for-hire permit for species managed by Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to submit an electronic vessel trip report using NMFS-approved software within 48 hours of completing a for-hire fishing trip (82 FR 42610, September 11, 2017). Because NMFS GARFO requires more restrictive reporting than what is proposed in the For-hire Reporting Amendment, owners and operators of a vessel issued a Federal for-hire permit for species in both the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic would be required to report under the electronic reporting program managed by GARFO, regardless of where fishing occurs or what species are caught.
The Gulf Council has also recommended amendments to their Gulf CMP FMP and their FMP for Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico to address for-hire electronic reporting. The Gulf Council has submitted these amendments for review and implementation by the Secretary of Commerce. The Gulf Council's recommendations of for-hire electronic reporting for charter vessels are more stringent than those reporting requirements contained in the For-hire Reporting Amendment. The proposed Gulf for-hire electronic reporting program would require trip-level reporting, a pre-trip notification to NMFS, and location information monitored by a vessel monitoring system, among other requirements. Thus, an owner or operator of a charter vessel that has been issued Federal charter vessel/headboat permits for applicable fisheries in both the Atlantic and the Gulf would be required to comply with the Gulf Council's more stringent for-hire electronic reporting program requirements, if the Gulf Council's amendments to address for-hire electronic reporting are approved and implemented. The intent of the South Atlantic Council is to prevent a vessel with multiple Federal for-hire
The For-hire Reporting Amendment also extends other provisions to federally permitted charter vessels that currently apply to headboats for reporting during catastrophic conditions, delinquent reporting, and video monitoring. During catastrophic conditions, NMFS may accept paper reporting forms, and can modify or waive reporting requirements. A delinquent report results in a prohibition on the harvest or possession of the applicable species by the charter vessel permit holder until all required and delinquent reports have been submitted and received by NMFS according to the reporting requirements. Finally, charter vessels must participate in a video monitoring program if selected by the SRD.
The For-hire Reporting Amendment specifies core data elements to be collected through the for-hire electronic reporting program. These core data elements include, but are not limited to, information about the permit holder, vessel, location fished, catch, discards, fishing effort, and socio-economic data. Other information that could further benefit the management of federally permitted for-hire vessels included under the For-hire Reporting Amendment may also be subject to collection as determined by NMFS in the future.
If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the For-hire Reporting Amendment would require charter vessels to report their locations fished by either inputting their latitude and longitude in an electronic reporting program or by selecting their fishing locations on a geographic grid in an electronic reporting program. The location accuracy of either reporting method would be to the nearest square nautical mile, or degrees and minutes. This location reporting requirement is consistent with what is collected currently for headboats in the SRHS.
The For-hire Reporting Amendment also revises the reporting deadline for federally permitted headboats to submit electronic fishing reports to further improve the accuracy and timeliness of data reported through the SRHS. Headboats currently submit an electronic fishing report for each trip at weekly intervals, or at intervals shorter than a week if notified by the SRD. Electronic fishing reports are currently due by the Sunday following a reporting week, where the reporting week runs from Monday through Sunday; in other words, reports are due within 7 days after a reporting week ends.
The For-hire Reporting Amendment would change the deadline for headboats to submit an electronic fishing report after a reporting week ends. Headboats would continue to submit electronic fishing reports through the SRHS on a weekly basis with reports due on each Tuesday following a reporting week; in other words, reports would be due within 2 days after a reporting week ends. This proposed change would make the reporting deadline for headboats consistent with the proposed reporting deadline for charter vessels.
Headboats with applicable Federal charter vessel/headboat permits in both Atlantic and Gulf fisheries would continue to be required to comply with the electronic reporting standards in effect based on where they are fishing,
A proposed rule that would implement the For-hire Reporting Amendment has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The South Atlantic Council has submitted the For-hire Reporting Amendment for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on the For-hire Reporting Amendment must be received by May 13, 2018. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to the For-hire Reporting Amendment or the proposed rule will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the For-hire Reporting Amendment. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 13, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 13, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Saturday March 31, 2018, from 10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. EDT for the purpose of hearing public testimony on voting rights issues in the state.
The meeting will be held on Saturday, March 31, 2018, from 10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. EDT.
The community forum will take place at Ivy Tech Community College, 1440 E. 35th Ave. Gary, IN 46409.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
This meeting is free and open to the public. Members of the public may appear in person and participate. This meeting is also available to the public through the above listed toll free call in number (audio only). Members of the public will be invited to make a statement as time allows.
For those individuals who join by phone, the conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
This is the fourth in a series of public meetings the Committee will hold on this topic. Please consult the
On October 13, 2017, Plantronics, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 153—Site 8, in San Diego, California.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 14, 2018.
Brian Smith or Janae Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0238, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on November 1, 2017.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a nonbusiness day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation is now March 7, 2018.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are forged steel fittings from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final countervailing duty (CVD) determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of forged steel fittings from China based on a request made by the petitioners.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
The Department calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings, Co., Ltd. (Both-Well), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after Commerce's final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings and unions. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.
While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, and MSS SP-83, ASTM A105, ASTM A350 and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.
The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock or machined from seamless pipe and tube.
All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure,
Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, and nipples.
Also excluded are fittings certified to the following standards and specifications, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, and MSS SP-83, ASTM A105, ASTM A350 and ASTM A182:
To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard markings and/or be accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard,
Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is issuing a final no shipments determination in the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) because Commerce continues to find that CS Wind Group did not have any shipments of subject merchandise by CS Wind Group during the period of review (POR). This review covers CS Wind Group where the company was the producer but not the exporter, or the exporter but not the producer of subject merchandise.
Applicable March 14, 2018.
Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4852.
On May 31, 2017, Commerce published its
The merchandise covered by this order are certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers are designed to support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof.
Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7308.20.0020
As explained above, in the
After issuing the
Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this 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 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For CS Wind Group, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to CS Wind Group in the most recently issued Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Final Determination of Less Than Fair Value Determination;
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of this administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 1, 2018, the Court of International Trade (CIT) entered final judgment sustaining the Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) remand redetermination in the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (HWR pipes and tubes) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). Commerce is notifying the public that the Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's amended final determination with respect to Ozdemir Boru Profil San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. (Ozdemir) and all other exporters and producers.
Applicable February 12, 2018.
Brian Smith or Janae Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0238, respectively.
On July 21, 2016, Commerce published its final determination in the CVD investigation of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey.
The Court remanded one aspect of Commerce's findings for further consideration.
On December 11, 2017, Commerce issued its
On February 1, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's
In its decision in
As there is now a final court decision, Commerce amends its
Because there has been no subsequent administrative review for MMZ Onur Boru Profit uretirn San Ve Tic. A.S. (MMZ) and Ozdemir, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to set the cash deposit rates for these companies to the rates listed above, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, companies not individually investigated are assigned an “all-others” countervailing duty rate. As a general rule, the all-others rate is equal to the weighted-average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for individually investigated producers, excluding any zero and
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 705(c)(1)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from the Republic of South Africa (South Africa) and Ukraine.
Applicable March 14, 2018.
Moses Song at (202) 482-5041 or John McGowan (202) 482-3019 (South Africa), Julia Hancock at (202) 482-1394, Annathea Cook at (202) 482-0250, or Courtney Canales at (202) 482-4997 (Ukraine), AD/CVD Operations, Office V & VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on January 16, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of wire rod from South Africa and Ukraine.
The merchandise covered by these orders is wire rod from South Africa and Ukraine. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
On March 1, 2018, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reasons of imports of wire rod from South Africa and Ukraine.
As a result of the ITC's final affirmative determinations, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of wire rod from South Africa and Ukraine. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of wire rod from South Africa and Ukraine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 31, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct
Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below. Accordingly, effective the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Section 733(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except that Commerce may extend the four-month period to no more than six months at the request of exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. In reference to these proceedings, a request to extend the final determination and extend provisional measures pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e) was received from exporters of wire rod from South Africa and the Ukraine. Commerce's preliminary determinations were published on October 31, 2017.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of wire rod from South Africa and Ukraine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after February 27, 2018, the date on which provisional measures expired, through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination regarding imports of wire rod from South Africa, Commerce will instruct CBP to lift suspension and refund any cash deposits made to secure payment of estimated antidumping duties on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 2, 2017, (
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for each antidumping
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to wire rod from South Africa and Ukraine pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently in effect at
These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act
The scope of these orders covers certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under these orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS may also be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd (Yama), an exporter/producer of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (ribbons) from the People's Republic of China (China), received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
Applicable March 14, 2018.
Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280.
Commerce published the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now March 9, 2018.
The merchandise covered by the order are narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
All issues raised in interested parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues raised by interested parties and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we made no changes to our subsidy rate calculation. For a discussion of these issues,
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 777A(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the total net countervailable subsidy rate for the period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 to be:
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the company listed above, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, at the
Commerce intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Yama, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to eight existing Federal Advisory Committees: Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award; Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award; Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board; Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board; National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee; Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction; NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee; and Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committees, in addition to nominations already received. Registered Federal lobbyists may not serve on NIST Federal Advisory Committees in an individual capacity.
Nominations for all committees will be accepted on an ongoing basis and will be considered as and when vacancies arise.
See below.
Please submit nominations to Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary, may be found at
Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program and Designated Federal Officer, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-4781; fax 301-975-4967; or via email at
The Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Board) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of NIST in administering the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award). The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary.
2. The Board shall make an annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of NIST, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process.
3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST.
1. The Board will consist of at least five and approximately 12 members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of organizational performance excellence. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. The Board will include members familiar with the quality, performance improvement operations, and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, nonprofits, health care providers, and educational institutions.
2. Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on
1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Board will meet at least annually, but usually two times a year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are usually one day in duration.
3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.
1. Nominations are sought from the private and public sector as described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, educational institutions, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Board membership.
Please submit nominations to Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary, may be found at
Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program and Designated Federal Officer, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-4781; fax 301-975-4967; or via email at
The Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Panel) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Panel will ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award) selection process. Based on a review of results of examiners' scoring of written applications, Panel members will vote on which applicants' merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants. The Panel will also review results and findings from site visits, and recommend Award recipients.
2. The Panel will ensure that individual judges will not participate in the review of applicants as to which they have any real or perceived conflict of interest.
3. The Panel will function solely as an advisory body, and will comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
4. The Panel will report to the Director of NIST.
1. The Panel will consist of no less than 9, and not more than 12, members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, small business, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. The Panel will include members familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, nonprofits, health care providers, and educational institutions.
2. Panel members will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on the last day of February of the appropriate year.
1. Members of the Panel shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Panel will meet three times per year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are usually one to four days in duration. In addition, each Judge must attend an annual three-day Examiner training course.
3. When approved by the Department of Commerce Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Panel meetings are closed or partially closed to the public.
1. Nominations are sought from all U.S. service and manufacturing industries, small businesses, education, health care, and nonprofits as described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, health care providers, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Panel, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Panel. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be either developing or researching topics of potential interest, reading Baldrige applications, and so forth, in furtherance of their Panel duties.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Panel membership.
Please submit nominations to Matt Scholl, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-8670, Attn: ISPAB Nominations. Additional information regarding the ISPAB, including its charter and current membership list, may be found on its electronic home page at
Matt Scholl, ISPAB Designated Federal Officer (DFO), NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930; telephone 301-975-2941; fax: 301-975-8670; or via email at
The ISPAB (Committee or Board) was originally chartered as the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235). The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, Title III), amended Section 21 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4), including changing the Committee's name, and the charter was amended accordingly.
1. The Board will identify emerging managerial, technical, administrative, and physical safeguard issues relative to information security and privacy.
2. The Board will advise NIST, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal Government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST.
3. The Board shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Board reports annually to the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of OMB, the Director of the National Security Agency, and the appropriate committees of the Congress.
5. The Board will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Director of NIST will appoint the Chairperson and the members of the ISPAB, and members serve at the discretion of the NIST Director. Members will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
2. The ISPAB will consist of a total of 12 members and a Chairperson.
• The Board will include four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the information technology industry, at least one of whom is representative of small or medium sized companies in such industries.
• The Board will include four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the fields of information technology, or related disciplines, but who are not employed by or representative of a producer of information technology.
• The Board will include four members from the Federal Government who have information system management experience, including experience in information security and privacy, at least one of whom shall be from the National Security Agency.
1. Members of the Board, other than full-time employees of the Federal government, will not be compensated for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Meetings of the ISPAB are usually two to three days in duration and are usually held quarterly. ISPAB meetings are open to the public, including the press. Members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their ISPAB duties.
1. Nominations are being accepted in all three categories described above.
2. Nominees should have specific experience related to information security or privacy issues, particularly as they pertain to Federal information technology. Letters of nomination should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Also include (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and any Federal employment. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the ISPAB, and that they will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the ISPAB.
3. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote a minimum of two days between meetings to developing draft issue papers, researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their ISPAB duties.
4. Selection of ISPAB members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as ISPAB vacancies occur.
5. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse ISPAB membership.
Please submit nominations to Ms. Cheryl Gendron, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-963-6556, or via email at
Ms. Cheryl Gendron, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800; telephone 301-975-4919, fax 301-963-6556; or via email at
The MEP Advisory Board (Board) is authorized under section 501 of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (Pub. L. 114-329); codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), as amended, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Board will provide advice on MEP activities, plans, and policies.
2. The Board will assess the soundness of MEP plans and strategies.
3. The Board will assess current performance against MEP program plans.
4. The Board will function solely in an advisory capacity, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
5. The Board shall transmit through the Director of NIST an annual report to the Secretary of Commerce for transmittal to Congress not later than 30 days after the submission to Congress of
1. The Board shall consist of not fewer than10 members, appointed by the Director of NIST and broadly representative of stakeholders. At least 2 members shall be employed by or on an advisory board for the MEP Centers, at least 5 members shall be from U.S. small businesses in the manufacturing sector, and at least 1 member shall represent a community college. No member shall be an employee of the Federal Government.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Board. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. Board members serve at the discretion of the Director of NIST.
3. The term of office of each member of the Board shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Board shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment during the one-year period following the expiration of the second term.
1. Members of the Board will not be compensated for their services but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Board will meet at least biannually. Additional meetings may be called by the Director of NIST or the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) or his or her designee.
3. Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are being accepted in all categories described above.
2. Nominees should have specific experience related to manufacturing and industrial extension services. Letters of nomination should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination and acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the MEP Advisory Board.
3. Selection of MEP Advisory Board members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as Board vacancies occur.
4. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse MEP Advisory Board membership.
Please submit nominations to Benjamin Davis, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8615, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604. Additional information regarding the NCST, including its charter may be found on its electronic home page at
Judith Mitrani-Reiser, Director, Disaster and Failure Studies Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8615, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604, telephone 301-975-0684; or via email at
The NCST Advisory Committee (Committee) was established in accordance with the National Construction Safety Team Act, Public Law 107-231 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Committee shall advise the Director of NIST on carrying out the National Construction Safety Team Act (Act), review the procedures developed under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and review the reports issued under section 8 of the Act.
2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. On January 1 of each year, the Committee shall transmit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that includes: (1) An evaluation of National Construction Safety Team (Team) activities, along with recommendations to improve the operation and effectiveness of Teams, and (2) an assessment of the implementation of the recommendations of Teams and of the Committee.
1. The Committee shall consist of no less than 4 and no more than 12 members. Members shall reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines and competencies involved in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams.
2. The Director of the NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their services but may, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5703.
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs), will be subject to the ethics standards applicable to SGEs, and are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
3. The Committee shall meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever requested by the NIST Director or the Designated Federal Officer (DFO); such meetings may be in the form of telephone conference calls and/or videoconferences.
1. Nominations are sought from industry and other communities having an interest in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the nominee agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership.
Please submit nominations to Tina Faecke, Management and Program Analyst, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4032 or email at
Steven McCabe, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8604, telephone 301-975-8549, fax 301-975-4032; or via email at
The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (Committee) was established in accordance with the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law 108-360 (42 U.S.C. 7704) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Committee will act in the public interest to assess trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; effectiveness of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Program) in carrying out the activities under section (a)(2) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7704(a)(2)); the need to revise the Program; and the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program.
2. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST at least once every two years on its findings of the assessments and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee shall consider the recommendations of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC).
1. The Committee shall consist of not fewer than 11, nor more than 17 members. Members shall reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in earthquake hazards reduction. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
3. The term of office of each member of the Committee shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy and that members shall have staggered terms such that the Committee will have approximately one-third new or reappointed members each year.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their services, but may, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethics standards applicable to SGEs, and are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
3. The Committee members shall meet face-to-face at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever requested by the NIST Director or the Chairperson; such meetings may be in the form of telephone conference calls and/or videoconferences.
4. Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Members will be drawn from industry and other communities having an interest in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, such as, but not limited to, research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, state and local government, and financial communities, who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction and represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines.
2. Any person who has completed two consecutive full terms of service on the Committee shall be ineligible for appointment for a third term during the two-year period following the expiration of the second term.
3. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the nominee agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee.
4. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad based and diverse Committee membership.
Please submit nominations to Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200. Nominations may also be submitted via email to
Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at
The NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee (Committee) was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration.
1. The Committee shall advise the Director of NIST in carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140).
2. The Committee duties are solely advisory in nature in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Committee shall provide input to NIST on the Smart Grid Standards, Priorities, and Gaps, on the overall direction, status and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry including identification of issues and needs, and on the direction of smart grid research and standards activities.
5. Upon request of the Director of NIST, the Committee will prepare reports on issues affecting Smart Grid activities.
1. The Committee shall consist of no less than 9 and no more than 15 members. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. Members shall reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines and competencies involved in the Smart Grid deployment and operations and will come from a cross section of organizations.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
1. Members of the Committee shall not be compensated for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. The Committee shall meet approximately two times per year at the call of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Additional meetings may be called by the DFO whenever one-third or more of the members so request it in writing or whenever the Director of NIST requests a meeting.
1. Nominations are sought from all fields involved in issues affecting the Smart Grid.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership.
Please submit nominations to Stephanie Shaw, Designated Federal Officer, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-216-0529 or via email at
Stephanie Shaw, Designated Federal Officer, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060, telephone 301-975-2667, fax 301-216-0529; or via email at
The VCAT (Committee) was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
1. The Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. 15 U.S.C. 278(a).
2. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. The Committee shall provide an annual report, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress not later than 30 days after the submittal to Congress of the President's annual budget request in each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect NIST, or with which the Committee in its official role as the private sector policy adviser of NIST is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of research and research techniques of the Institute of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of United States industry, in which the Institute possesses special competence, which could be used to assist United States enterprises and Untied States industrial joint research and development ventures. 15 U.S.C. 278(h)(1). The Committee shall submit, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary and the Congress such additional reports on specific policy matters as it deems appropriate. 15 U.S.C. 278(h)(2).
1. The Committee shall consist of not fewer than nine members appointed by the Director of NIST, a majority of whom shall be from United States industry. 15 U.S.C. 278(a). Members shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service; shall provide representation of a cross-section of traditional and emerging United States industries; and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Committee. 15 U.S.C. 278(b).
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee. Members shall be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. 15 U.S.C. 278(a).
3. The term of office of each member of the Committee shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. 15 U.S.C. 278(c)(1).
1. Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethics standards applicable to SGEs.
3. Meetings of the VCAT usually take place at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The Committee will meet at least twice each year at the call of the chairperson or whenever one-third of the members so request in writing. The Committee shall not act in the absence of a quorum, which shall consist of a majority of the members of the Committee not having a conflict of interest in the matter being considered by the Committee. 15 U.S.C. 278(d).
4. Generally, Committee meetings are open to the public.
1. Nominations are sought from all fields described above.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment and international relations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the candidate agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the VCAT, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the VCAT.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse VCAT membership.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC)
Notice of Open Meeting.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Email:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Western Pacific Stock Assessment Review (WPSAR) Steering Committee will convene a public meeting to discuss and approve the 5-year calendar for stock assessments, and to address any other concerns related to the WPSAR process.
The Steering Committee will meet from 1 to 3 p.m. on April 13, 2018.
The meeting will be at the Council office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
Marlow Sabater, (808) 522-8143 or
The WPSAR steering committee consists of the Council's Executive Director, the Director of the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, and the Regional Administrator of the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office. You may read more about WPSAR at
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the meeting. The agenda order may change. The meeting will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
1. Introductions.
2. Discuss and update the 5-year stock assessment review schedule, including any changes to the scheduling of reviews for stock assessments already on the calendar, and any new additions to the schedule.
3. Discuss and update review levels, that is, whether the stock assessments on the calendar will be benchmark assessments (new assessments) or assessment updates (updates of existing models with recent data).
4. Review the upcoming schedule and nominate additional products for review by the Center for Independent Experts, if necessary.
5. Discuss the Stock Assessment Prioritization process.
6. Discuss any changes related to the proposed action to reclassify certain management unit species as ecosystem component species.
7. Discuss process and timing for efficient release of information, that is, from WPSAR to the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee, to the Council, and to NMFS for rulemaking.
8. Public Comment.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Make direct requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids to Marlowe Sabater at (808) 522-8143 or
16 U.S.C. 1801
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0255, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the internet at:
DFARS 236.570(a) prescribes use of the clause at DFARS 252.236-7000, Modification Proposals—Price Breakdown, in all fixed-price construction solicitations and contracts. The clause requires the contractor to
DFARS 236.570(b) prescribes use of the following clauses in fixed-price construction contracts and solicitations as applicable:
(1) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7002, Obstruction of Navigable Waterways, requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of obstructions in navigable waterways.
(2) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7003, Payment for Mobilization and Preparatory Work, requires the contractor to provide supporting documentation when submitting requests for payment for mobilization and preparatory work.
(3) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7004, Payment for Mobilization and Demobilization, permits the contracting officer to require the contractor to furnish cost data justifying the percentage of the cost split between mobilization and demobilization, if the contracting officer believes that the proposed percentages do not bear a reasonable relation to the cost of the work.
DFARS 236.570(c) prescribes use of the following provisions in solicitations for military construction contracts that are funded with military construction appropriations and are estimated to exceed $1,000,000:
(1) The provision at DFARS 252.236-7010, Overseas Military Construction—Preference for United States Firms, when contract performance will be in a United States outlying area in the Pacific or in a country bordering the Arabian Gulf, requires an offeror to specify whether or not it is a United States firm.
(2) The provision at DFARS 252.236-7012, Military Construction on Kwajalein Atoll—Evaluation Preference, when contract performance will be on Kwajalein Atoll, requires an offeror to specify whether it is a United States firm, a Marshallese firm, or other firm.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0187, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy Williams, 571-372-6106. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the internet at:
• Determine whether to provide precious metals as Government-furnished material;
• Determine whether a foreign government owns or controls the offeror to prevent access to proscribed information;
• Determine whether there is a compelling reason for a contractor to enter into a subcontract in excess of $30,000 with a firm, or subsidiary of a firm, that is identified in the “List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement” as being ineligible for award of Defense subcontracts because it is owned or controlled by the government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism;
• Evaluate claims of indemnification for losses or damages occurring under a research and development contract; and
• Keep track of radio frequencies on electronic equipment under research and development contracts so that the user does not override or interfere with the use of that frequency by another user.
This information collection pertains to information, as required in DFARS Parts 208, 209, 235, and associated clauses in Part 252 that an offeror must submit to DoD in response to a request for proposals or an invitation for bids or a contract requirement. The information collection covers the following DFARS requirements:
•
•
•
•
•
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0454, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the internet at:
Under the U.S.-International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol, the United States is required to declare a wide range of public and private nuclear-related activities to the IAEA and potentially provide access to IAEA inspectors for verification purposes. The U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol permits the United States unilaterally to declare exclusions from inspection requirements for activities with direct national security significance.
The DFARS clause at 252.204-7010, as prescribed at DFARS 204.470-3, is included in contracts for research and development or major defense acquisition programs involving fissionable materials (
The clause requires a contractor to provide written notification to the applicable DoD program manager and a copy of the notification to the contracting officer if the contractor is required to report its activities under the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol. Upon such notification, DoD will determine if access may be granted to IAEA inspectors, or if a national security exclusion should be applied.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Health Agency (DHA), Public Health Division, Health Care Operations Directorate (ATTN: Major Mary Bauza-Lawver), 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, VA 22042 or call 703-681-5870.
Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
Annual Burden Hours: 480.
Number of Respondents: 1,200.
Responses per Respondent: 2.
Annual Responses: 2400.
Average Burden per Response: 12 minutes.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondents are DoD personnel (active duty service members, federal civilian employees and contractors). Using the DD2990 and DD2991, information will be collected from respondents during deployment and just prior to redeployment (return from deployment). This information will provide for health surveillance while deployed, removal from duty if representing a health risk to self or others, apprehension and detention, or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases, pursuant to section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), UCMJ, DoD Directive 6490.02E, DoD Instruction 6490.03, 5 CFR 339.301. The information will also be collected in order to identify any health concerns and to refer individuals for additional assessment and/or care. The overall intent is to protect the health of the individual and public from EBV. This information will also be included in deployer's medical records.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) at: ATTN: Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC); Suite 04E25, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100, or fax at 571-372-1059.
The Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) is a DoD personnel security system and is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in access determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities. Collection and maintenance of personal data in JPAS is required to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees, and contractors requiring such credentials. Facility Security Officers (FSOs) working in private companies that contract with DoD and who need access to the JPAS system to update security-related information about their company's employees must complete DD Form 2962. Specific uses include: Facilitation for DoD Adjudicators and Security Managers to obtain accurate up-to-date eligibility and access information on all personnel (military, civilian and contractor personnel) adjudicated by the DoD. The DoD Adjudicators and Security Managers are also able to update eligibility and access levels of military, civilian and contractor personnel nominated for access to sensitive DoD information. Once granted access, the FSOs maintain employee personal information, submit requests for investigations, and submit other relevant personnel security information into JPAS on over 1,000,000 contract employees annually.
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (the Department) publishes this notice of a new system of records entitled “Impact Study of Feedback for Teachers based on Classroom Videos (18-13-40).” This system contains individually identifying information provided by individuals and school districts who participate in the impact study. The information contained in the records maintained in this system will be used to conduct a rigorous study of the effectiveness of support to teachers based on their teaching practices within their classroom.
Submit your comments on this new system of records notice on or before April 13, 2018.
This new system of records will become applicable upon publication in the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Teresa Cahalan, SORN Coordinator, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW, Room 4126, Washington, DC 20202 or by email at
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service, at 1-800-877-8339.
The study will address the following central research questions: What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing novice teachers with feedback on their teaching using multiple videos of their classroom practices? What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing early career teachers (those in their second, third, or fourth year of teaching) with feedback on their teaching using multiple videos of their classroom practices? Secondary research questions for the study are: Is intensive feedback more effective for certain types of teachers or students? On which teaching practices should feedback interventions focus?
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Impact Study of Feedback for Teachers based on Classroom Videos (18-13-40).
Unclassified.
The location is at Mathematica Policy Research, P.O. Box 2393, Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 (contractor).
Project's contracting officer representative, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW, Room 4114, Washington, DC 20202.
The study is authorized under sections 171(b) and 173 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA)(20 U.S.C. 9561(b) and 9563) and section 8601 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (20 U.S.C. 7981).
The information contained in the records maintained in this system will be used to conduct a rigorous study of the effectiveness of feedback for teachers based on classroom videos to inform effective teacher preparation and professional development.
The study will address the following central research questions: What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing novice teachers with feedback on their teaching using multiple videos of their classroom practices? What is the impact on teaching practices and student achievement of providing early career teachers (those in their second, third, or fourth year of teaching) with feedback on their teaching using multiple videos of their classroom practices? Secondary research questions for the study are: Is intensive feedback more effective for certain types of teachers or students? On which teaching practices should feedback interventions focus?
The system of records will include individually identifying information about teachers who participate in the study and their students. The system will contain records on approximately 500 teachers and 10,625 students from up to 12 school districts.
For teachers, this information will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, teacher name, background characteristics, teaching experience, teacher preparation experiences, knowledge of teaching practice, experience with professional development, feedback to support their teaching practice, and videos of classroom practice and ratings of
Data will be obtained through: Human resource and student administrative records maintained by the school districts; videos of classroom practice and ratings of teaching practice conducted by the study team using the videos; and surveys of teachers administered by the study team.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. The Department may make these disclosures on a case-by-case basis. Any disclosure of individually identifiable information from a record in this system must also comply with the requirements of section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573) providing for confidentiality standards that apply to all collection, reporting, and publication of data by the Institute of Education Sciences. Any disclosure of personally identifiable information from student education records that were obtained from school districts must also comply with the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR part 99), which protects the privacy of student education records.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Records in this system of records are maintained in a secure, password-protected electronic system.
Records in this system will be indexed and retrieved by a unique number assigned to each teacher that will be cross-referenced by the individual's name on a separate list.
The contractor's employees who “maintain” (collect, maintain, use, or disseminate) data in this system must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the confidentiality standards in section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573).
The Department shall submit a retention and disposition schedule that covers the records contained in this system to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for review. The records will not be destroyed until such time as NARA approves said schedule.
Security protocols for this system of records (Impact Study of Feedback for Teachers based on Classroom Videos) meet all required security standards
The contractor is required to ensure that information identifying individuals is in files physically separated from other research data and electronic files identifying individuals are separated from other electronic research data files. The contractor will maintain security of the complete set of all master data files and documentation. Access to individually identifiable data will be strictly controlled. All information will be kept in locked file cabinets during nonworking hours, and work on hardcopy data will take place in a single room, except for data entry.
Physical security of electronic data also will be maintained. Security features that protect project data will include: Password-protected accounts that authorize users to use the contractor's system but to access only specific network directories and network software; user rights and directory and file attributes that limit those who can use particular directories and files and determine how they can use them; and additional security features that the network administrators will establish for projects as needed. The contractor's employees who “maintain” (collect, maintain, use, or disseminate) data in this system must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act and the confidentiality standards in section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573).
If you wish to request access to your records, you must contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS. Your request must provide the necessary particulars of your full name, address, telephone number, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, you must contact the system manager at the address listed above. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to inquire whether a record exists regarding you in this system, you must contact the system manager at the address listed above. You must provide the necessary particulars of your full name, address, telephone number, and any other
None.
None.
On February 13, 2018, Pioneer Valley Renewables, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Scotlandville Bend Project (Scotlandville Project or project) to be located on the Mississippi River, in West Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Four underwater, carbon fiber shroud and blade design turbine-generating units, each with a diameter of 18 meters and a cross section of 4 meters; (2) each pair of units will be mounted on a riverbed secured piling, 30 meters apart; (3) flexible cables would convey power to a metering station; and (4) a transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. Each unit would have an installed capacity of 1.5 megawatts for a total generating capacity of 6 megawatts. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of 40,000 megawatt-hours, which would be sold.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's website at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the Colorado Public Utilities Commission's Commissioner Information Meeting (CIM) as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The CIM will be held on March 20, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Mountain Time at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Hearing Room A, 1560 Broadway, Suite 250, Denver, CO 80202. The phone number is (303) 894-2533.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
This meeting is open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Take notice that on March 5, 2018, T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership, filed an application for Commission Certification as a Qualifying Cogeneration Facility.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that during the month of February 2018, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017).
Take notice that on March 1, 2018, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules of the Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 18 CFR 385.206 (2017), Part 343 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 343
TransMontaigne certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Colonial as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding NTE Carolinas, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 28, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), in a room to be determined at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
At the technical conference, the Commission Staff and the parties to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues set for technical conference as established in the January 30, 2018 Order,
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Richard Wartchow, 202-502-6000.
Take notice that on February 28, 2018, Elkton Acquisition Corp. (EAC), 7 St. Paul Street, Suite 820, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, filed in Docket No. CP18-96-000, an application pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting a service area determination to allow it to provide natural gas distribution service from certain facilities (Elkton Facilities) in Delaware across the state line into Maryland. EAC is acquiring the Elkton Facilities from Elkton Gas (Elkton), a Maryland local distribution company. The Commission previously granted Elkton a service area determination subject to the regulatory oversight of the Maryland Public Service Commission (MdPSC). EAC seeks to succeed that service area determination because the Elkton Facilities will be owned and operated by a new corporate entity. EAC states that after its acquisition of Elkton, it will continue to provide the same natural gas services previously provided by Elkton, subject to the regulatory oversight of the MdPSC. EAC additionally requests that the Commission determine that EAC qualifies as a local distribution company for the purposes of transportation under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and that it be granted waiver of all reporting and accounting requirements, as well as other rules and regulations that are normally applicable to natural gas companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Kirstin E. Gibbs, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2541, by telephone at (202) 739-5026, by fax at (202) 739-3001, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4).
The Commission's PRB will remove the following members:
The Commission's PRB will add the following members:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of extension of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-725Y, Mandatory Reliability Standards (Personnel Performance, Training, and Qualifications), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements.
Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously published a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by April 13, 2018.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0279, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC18-2-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Reliability Standard requires entities to maintain records subject to review by the Commission and NERC to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standard. This Reliability Standard contains of five Requirements:
• R1 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators to develop and implement a training program for system operators.
• R2 requires transmission owners to develop and implement a training program for system operators.
• R3 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to verify the capabilities of their identified personnel.
• R4 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to provide those personnel with emergency operations training using simulation technology.
• R6 requires applicable generator operators to develop and implement training for certain of their dispatch personnel at a centrally located dispatch center.
The Commission estimates the additional annual reporting burden and cost as follows:
At least five years before the expiration of a license for a minor water power project not subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act (
If such a licensee informs the Commission that it does not intend to file an application for a subsequent license, nonpower license, or exemption for the project, the licensee may not file an application for a subsequent license, nonpower license, or exemption for the project, either individually or in conjunction with an entity or entities that are not currently licensees of the project.
On September 26, 2017, Moon Lake Electric Association, the existing licensee for the Yellowstone Hydroelectric Project No. 1773, filed notice of its intent to not file an application for a subsequent license. Therefore, pursuant to section 16.24(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations, Moon Lake may not file an application for a subsequent license for the project, either individually or in conjunction with an entity or entities that are not currently licensees of the project.
The 900-kilowatt (kW) Yellowstone Hydroelectric Project is located on the Yellowstone River, in Duchesne County, Utah. The diversion dam, and portions of the penstock, are located within the Ashley National Forest. The existing minor license for the project expires on October 15, 2022.
The principal project works consist of: (1) A 15-foot-high, 313-foot-long rock filled, timber-crib dam that impounds a small reservoir covering approximately 3.8 acres; (2) a concrete intake structure with a gate valve; (3) a 14,126-foot-long, 44-inch-diameter and 42-inch-diameter steel penstock; (4) a powerhouse with three turbine-generators rated at 300 kW each; (5) a substation; (6) a 14.27-mile-long, 7.2-kilovolt overhead transmission line and underlain telephone line; and (7) and appurtenant facilities.
Any party interested in filing a license application (
The deadline for potential applicants, other than the existing licensee, to file NOIs, PADs, and requests to use an alternative licensing process is 120 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Applications for a subsequent license from potential applicants, other than the existing licensee, must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license.
Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Evan Williams (202) 502-8462 or
Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., in Room 3M-4 A and B at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The technical conference will provide an opportunity for Commission staff and representatives from Alaska Gasline Development Corporation to discuss clarifications on the Commission staff's February 15, 2018 environmental data request for the Alaska LNG Project. While all interested persons and Commission staff are permitted to attend, no comments or statements during the conference will be permitted. Further, there will be no discussion of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information or privileged materials. For further information please contact Jennifer Zielinski at (202) 502-6259 or email
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
Take notice that on March 5, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership (Filer City) and Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) (jointly Petitioners) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting confirmation that, pursuant to 18 CFR 292.601(c), sales of energy and capacity from the T.E.S. Filer City Station Plant (Facility), pursuant to a 1988 power purchase agreement between Filer City and Consumers (PPA), will continue to be exempt from Federal Power Act sections 205 and 206, 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e, after the PPA is amended in connection with a plan to repower and modernize the Facility, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 22, 2018, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed an application in Docket No. CP18-90-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization to amend its certificate authority granted in Docket No. CP15-536-000 to abandon by sale to Tana Exploration Company LLC (Tana) approximately 26.55 miles of 20-inch-diameter gathering pipeline extending from Matagorda Island Block 669 to Brazos Block 133 Platform A, offshore Texas. Transco now seeks to abandon these facilities in place, rather than by sale to Tana, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Marg Camardello, Regulatory Analyst, Lead, Rates & Regulatory, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, or by telephone at (713) 215-3380.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, 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 the renewal of the existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On December 28, 2017, the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collection described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this renewal.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2018.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jennifer Jones, at the FDIC address above.
On December 28, 2017, the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collection described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this renewal.
1.
Like Regulation E, Regulation CC has consumer protection disclosure requirements. Specifically, Regulation CC requires depository institutions to make funds deposited in transaction accounts available within specified time periods, disclose their availability policies to customers, and begin accruing interest on such deposits promptly. The disclosures are intended to alert customers that their ability to use deposited funds may be delayed, prevent unintentional (and costly) overdrafts, and allow customers to compare the policies of different institutions before deciding at which institution to deposit funds. Depository institutions must also provide an awareness disclosure regarding substitute checks. The regulation also requires notice to the depositary bank and to a customer of nonpayment of a check.
Regulation DD also has similar consumer protection disclosure requirements that are intended to assist consumers in comparing deposit accounts offered by institutions, principally through the disclosure of fees, the annual percentage yield, and other account terms. Regulation DD requires depository institutions to disclose yields, fees, and other terms concerning deposit accounts to consumers at account opening, upon request, and when changes in terms occur. Depository institutions that provide periodic statements are required to include information about fees imposed, interest earned, and the annual percentage yield (APY) earned during those statement periods. It also contains rules about advertising deposit accounts.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation and the reduced number of FDIC-supervised institutions since the last submission in 2014. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning material and workmanship.
Submit comments on or before May 14, 2018.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, telephone 202-501-1448, or via email at
Under Federal contracts requiring that equipment (
The Government uses the submitted data to determine whether or not the equipment meets the contract requirements in the categories of performance, construction, and durability. This data is placed in the contract file and used during the inspection of the equipment when it arrives on the project and when it is made operable.
The information collection requirement at FAR clause 52.236-5 has decreased based on information from the FY 2017 FPDS database which shows a lower number of estimated respondents that are subject to the clause.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for approval of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding small business size re-representation.
Submit comments on or before: May 14, 2018.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0163, Small Business Size Re-representation, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Janet Fry, Procurement Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, contact via telephone 703-605-3167 or email
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.301 and the FAR clause at 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Re-representation, implement the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulation at 13 CFR 121.404(g), requiring that a concern that initially represented itself as small at the time of its initial offer must recertify its status as a small business under the following circumstances:
• Within thirty days of an approved contract novation;
• Within thirty days in the case of a merger or acquisition, where contract novation is not required; or
• Within 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of a contract, and no more than 120 days prior to the exercise of any option thereafter.
The implementation of SBA's regulation in FAR 19.301 and the FAR clause at 52.219-28 require that contractors re-represent size status by updating their representations at the prime contract level in the Representations and Certifications section of the System for Award Management (SAM) and notifying the contracting officer that it has made the required update.
The purpose of implementing small business re-representations in the FAR is to ensure that small business size status is accurately represented and reported over the life of long-term contracts. The FAR also provides for provisions designed to ensure more accurate reporting of size status for contracts that are novated, or performed
An upward adjustment is being made to the estimated annual reporting burden since the last notice regarding an extension for this clearance published on May 4, 2015 in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0163, Small Business Size Re-representation, in all correspondence.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project
Comments on this notice must be received by May 14, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are a fast-growing health care setting, demonstrating tremendous growth both in the volume and complexity of procedures being performed. ASCs provide surgical services to patients who are not expected to need an inpatient stay following surgery. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) defines ASCs as distinct entities that operate exclusively to provide surgical services to patients who do not require hospitalization and are not expected to need to stay in a surgical facility longer than 24 hours.
Shortly after Congress enacted this legislation, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published “To Err is Human,” a seminal report on medical errors that connected the dots between errors and workplace culture. In it, the IOM called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that staffing and system processes are aligned to improve the reliability and safety of patient care. This appeal for safety culture improvements directly relates to AHRQ's legislative directive and mission (
The expanding volume and scope of ASC services, the growing attention of federal regulators on patient safety within ASCs, and the resultant implications for public health has prompted AHRQ to present this application to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In this request, AHRQ seeks OMB approval to expand its Surveys on Patient Safety Culture
The relationship between patient safety culture and the quality of ASC care has attracted more recent attention from policymakers and regulators. On the national level, the Joint Commission in early 2017 within its ASC accreditation manual established a new chapter on patient safety systems improvement, which includes strategies for “motivating staff to uphold a fair and just safety culture.” CMS, meanwhile, published in November 2017 its Final Rule outlining the ASC Quality Reporting Program, which ties quality and patient safety performance to reimbursement.
AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide, the pilot study results, and related toolkit materials on the
The goal of this project is to create the ASC SOPS Database. This database will:
(1) Present results from ASCs that voluntarily submit their data;
(2) Present trend data for ASCs that have submitted their data more than once;
(3) Provide data to ASCs to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process; and
(4) Provide supplemental information to help ASCs identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to health statistics, surveys, and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
With the approval and addition of the ASC SOPS Database, data from the database will be used to produce three types of products:
(1) An ASC SOPS Database Report that will be made publicly available on the AHRQ website (see, for example, another project in the SOPS suite, the Hospital User Database Report);
(2) Individual ASC Survey Feedback Reports that are customized for each ASC that submits data to the database; and
(3) Research data sets of individual-level and ASC-level data to enable researchers to
ASCs will be invited to voluntarily submit their ASC SOPS survey data into the database. AHRQ's contractor, Westat, will then clean and aggregate the data to produce a PDF-formatted Database Report displaying averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 33 items and 8 patient safety culture dimensions. In addition, the report will also display results by respondent characteristics (
The Database Report will include a section on data limitations, emphasizing that the report does not reflect a representative sampling of the U.S. ASC population. Because participating ASCs will choose to submit their data voluntarily into the database and therefore are not a random or national sample of ASCs, estimates based on this self-selected group might be biased estimates. These limitations will be noted in the database report. We will recommend that users review the database results with these caveats in mind.
Each ASC that submits its data will receive a customized survey feedback report that presents their results alongside the aggregated results from other participating ASCs. If an ASC submits data more than once, its survey feedback report will also present trend data.
ASC users of the ASCs SOPS Survey, Database Reports, and Individual ASC Survey Feedback Reports can use these documents to:
• Raise staff awareness about patient safety;
• Diagnose and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their own ASC;
• Identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement;
• Examine trends in patient safety culture change over time; and
• Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and intervention.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. Given that this will be the first call for voluntary data submission, participation is initially expected to be modest. An estimated 100 ASC managers (
• Eligibility and registration form (completion is estimated to take about 5 minutes).
• Data use agreement (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).
• ASC Site Information Form (completion is estimated to take about 5 minutes).
• Survey data submission will take an average of one hour.
The total burden is estimated to be 121 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $5,472.83.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Leveraging the Emerging Field of Disaster Citizen Science to Enhance Community Resilience and Improve Disaster Response” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on September 19, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Leveraging the Emerging Field of Disaster Citizen Science to Enhance Community Resilience and Improve Disaster Response—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The information collection for which approval is sought is in accordance with OPHPR's mission to safeguard health and save lives by providing a platform for public health preparedness and emergency response. As part of its role, OPHPR is empowered to fund applied research to improve the ability of CDC and its partners, including but not limited to state and local health departments, emergency management organizations, and health care entities, to effectively prepare for and respond to public health emergencies and disasters.
Citizen science is defined as research activities (
This is an exploratory study and is the first of its kind to explore the growing phenomenon of disaster citizen science. Disaster citizen science is a rapidly growing field that is the focus of policy interest, but currently devoid of research. While interviews will be hypothesis generating and provide rich data on the experiences with citizen science to date across all stakeholders active in this enterprise, the nationally-representative survey data will allow us to generalize findings to the full population of LHDs in the U.S.
CDC requests approval of a new information collection to learn about how the emerging field of disaster citizen science can enhance community resilience for a period of 1 year. This (mixed methods) information collection using interviews and a cross-sectional survey aims to: (1) Explore the potential of disaster citizen science for increasing community resilience, enhancing participation in preparedness and response activities, and improving preparedness efforts; and (2) provide evidence to inform the development of educational and instructional tools for communities and health departments to navigate the emerging field of disaster citizen science and promote collaborations. Insights from this information collection will be used to inform the development of guidance and toolkits for LHDs and community groups so that they can align their efforts and strengthen the benefits and positive impacts of citizen science activities. For interviews, the information collection will target citizen scientists and end users of citizen science data.
This information collection will be implemented in collaboration with a contractor and will target citizen scientists and their partners (
The project aims to conduct 35-55 facilitated, semi-structured, individual and group interviews, each lasting approximately 60 minutes, to cover topics including benefits and uses of citizen science, barriers to and facilitators of citizen science, and strengths and limitations of citizen science activities and resources.
Researchers will identify potential interview participants through literature reviews and snowball sampling in a phased approach starting with citizen science and LHD organizations.
The project will sample for maximum variation in order to capture the full range of citizen scientist and health department experiences on this topic. For the survey, the project aims to obtain a nationally representative sample of 600 local health officials and will apply survey weights to ensure that
CDC anticipates that the knowledge resulting from this research project will contribute significantly to the evidence base for preparedness and response and lead to improved efficiency, effectiveness, and outcomes in several domains.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. A summary of annualized burden hours is below. The total estimated burden hours is 219 hours.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by April 13, 2018.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of four abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from two applicants. The holders of the applications notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Approval is withdrawn as of April 13, 2018.
Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945,
The holders of the applications listed in the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of April 13, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on April 13, 2018 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public meeting entitled “Patient-Focused Drug Development on Opioid Use Disorder.” The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain patients' perspectives on the impacts of and treatment approaches for opioid use disorder (OUD). This meeting is a part of FDA's ongoing work aimed at reducing the impact of opioid abuse and addiction.
The public meeting will be held on April 17, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by June 18, 2018. See the
The public meeting will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. 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 June 18, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Meghana Chalasani, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1146, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6525, Fax: 301-847-8443,
This meeting will provide FDA the opportunity to better understand the patient perspective on the impacts of OUD and on treatment approaches for OUD. OUD is the diagnostic term used for a chronic neurobiological disease characterized by a problematic pattern of opioid use leading to significant impairment or distress. OUD includes signs and symptoms that reflect compulsive, prolonged self-administration of opioid substances for no legitimate medical purpose, or, if another medical condition is present that required opioid treatment, the opioid is used in doses far greater than the amount needed for treatment of that medical condition. FDA is interested in learning patients' perspectives on OUD, including the effects on their health and well-being that have the greatest negative effect on daily life, their experience using prescription medical treatments and other treatments or therapies for OUD, and challenges or barriers to accessing or using medical treatments for OUD.
There are three drugs approved by FDA for the treatment of OUD: Buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. FDA is taking steps to facilitate the development of new medications for the treatment of OUD and new formulations of existing drugs that could better suit patient needs. Promoting wider appropriate use of these safe and effective medications is also the focus of FDA's ongoing work to reduce the scope and magnitude of the opioid crisis.
At the meeting, patients and patient representatives will provide patient perspectives on the symptoms and daily impacts of OUD and on treatment approaches for OUD. The questions that will be asked of patients and patient representatives at the meeting are listed in the following section and organized by topic. For each topic, a brief initial patient panel discussion will begin the dialogue. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion inviting comments from other patient and patient representative participants. In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient and patient representative input addressing these questions through written comments, which can be submitted to the public docket (see
FDA will post the agenda and other meeting materials approximately 5 days before the meeting at:
1. Of all the ways that OUD negatively affects your health and well-being, which effects have the most significant impact on your daily life? Examples of negative effects may include:
• Effects of using opioids, such as confusion, constipation, or other symptoms;
• Effects of opioid withdrawal, such as nausea, diarrhea, or other symptoms;
• Effects of opioid “cravings;”
• Impacts on ability to function in personal or professional life;
• Emotional or social effects; and
• Other potential effects.
2. How does OUD affect daily life on your best days? On your worst days?
3. How has your OUD changed over time?
4. What worries you most about your condition?
1. Are you currently using, or have you used in the past, any prescription medical treatments to treat your OUD? Such treatments may include buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone, and others that your health care provider has prescribed. If so, please describe your experiences with these treatments.
• How well have these treatments worked for you? How well have they helped address the effects of OUD that are most bothersome to you?
• What are the biggest problems you have faced in using these treatments? Examples may include bothersome side effects, challenges getting the medicines, concern about stigma, and other possible problems.
2. Besides prescription medical treatments, are there other treatments or therapies that you currently use to address your OUD? If so, please describe. How well do these treatments or therapies help address the effects of OUD that are most bothersome to you?
3. Of all treatments, therapies, or other steps that you have taken to address your OUD, what have you found to be most effective in helping you manage your OUD?
4. What are the biggest factors that you take into account when making decisions about seeking out or using treatments for OUD?
5. What specific things would you look for in an ideal treatment for OUD?
6. If you had the opportunity to consider participating in a clinical trial studying experimental treatments for OUD, what factors would you consider when deciding whether or not to participate?
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 11, 2018. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public meeting will be provided beginning at 9 a.m.
If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact Meghana Chalasani (see
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “M7(R1): Assessment and Control of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk.” This guidance updates and replaces the May 2015 guidance for industry “M7 Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk.” This guidance finalizes the draft guidance “M7(R1) Addendum to ICH M7: Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk,” issued September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58261).
The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. This M7(R1) document provides guidance on acceptable intakes (AIs), or permissible daily exposures (PDEs), derived for some chemicals that are considered to be mutagens and carcinogens and, are also commonly used in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals or are, useful examples to illustrate the principles for deriving compound-specific intakes described in ICH M7. This document is intended to provide guidance for new drug substances and new drug products during their clinical development and subsequent applications for marketing.
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
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 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 CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
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 then 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; the 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 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 June 2017.
This final guidance provides guidance on acceptable intake limits derived for some chemicals that are considered to be mutagenic carcinogens and are also commonly used in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals or are useful examples to illustrate the principles for deriving compound-specific intakes described in the ICH M7 guidance. This guidance is intended to provide guidance for new drug substances and new drug products during their clinical development and subsequent applications for marketing. The default method from ICH M7 of linear extrapolation from the cancer potency estimate, TD
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 “M7: Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk.” 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 guidance at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for Public Comment on the Graduate Psychology Education Program.
The Graduate Psychology Education (GPE) Program is authorized by section 756 of the Public Health Service Act and administered by HRSA. The program provides financial support to organizations and institutions that train doctoral-level psychologists. This notice seeks public comment to inform and guide policy and planning associated with the GPE Program.
Individuals and organizations interested in providing information must submit written comments no later than April 13, 2018. To receive consideration, comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.
Interested parties should submit their comments to Cynthia Harne, Public Health Analyst and Project Officer for the GPE Program, Division of Nursing and Public Health, Behavioral and Public Health Branch, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11N-90C, Rockville, Maryland 20857; phone (301) 443-7661; fax (301) 443-0791; or email
Cynthia Harne, Public Health Analyst, Division of Nursing and Public Health, Behavioral and Public Health Branch, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, at the contact information listed above.
The GPE Program was established in 2002 to assist American Psychological Association (APA) accredited doctoral programs and internships in meeting the costs to plan, develop, operate, or maintain graduate psychology education programs to train health service psychologists to work with vulnerable populations. The purpose of the current program (Funding Opportunity Announcement HRSA-16-059) is to prepare doctoral-level psychologists to provide behavioral health care, including mental health and substance use disorder prevention and treatment services, in settings that provide integrated primary and behavioral health services to underserved and/or rural populations. The program is designed to foster an integrated and interprofessional approach to address access to behavioral health care for underserved and/or rural populations.
Given the value of feedback from stakeholders, HRSA is seeking comments from interested parties including current and former grant recipients, former applicants to the program, doctoral psychology schools and programs, and health care delivery sites that provide behavioral health experiential training to students. The purpose is to identify doctoral-level health service psychologist training needs, salient issues and challenges in the delivery of behavioral health services, including substance use, and to provide individual recommendations to maximize the reach, capacity and success of the GPE Program in addressing Opioid Use Disorder and other behavioral health concerns. This information may be used by HRSA will consider the input as it develops future technical assistance and funding opportunities, and strategic planning to meet the training demands of the behavioral health workforce.
HRSA seeks comments on how the GPE program (and the students it supports) can help address the opioid epidemic. In your comments, please address one or more of the following:
1. What do you see as the most prevalent behavioral health and public health trends or concerns that should be addressed in developing the psychologist workforce?
2. What do you see as the role for doctoral-level health psychologists in addressing the opioid epidemic?
3. What are the didactic and experiential training needs in preparing
4. If your institution has received in the past, is currently receiving, or applied for but did not receive GPE funding, what features or requirements of the GPE Program were easy to incorporate and/or beneficial in the development and implementation of your program, and which ones posed challenges? Please provide specific examples. If your institution did not apply for GPE funding, what features or requirements of the GPE Program posed challenges to the development of your program or dissuaded your institution from applying to the program?
5. What health workforce training strategies within the experiential training sites could the GPE Program address to increase access to integrated behavioral health/primary care services in underserved and/or rural populations? Please provide a description of practice.
6. Type and site including geographic locations (
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, HHS is altering an existing department-wide system of records, “Records About Restricted Dataset Requesters,” System Number 09-90-1401. This system of records covers records about individuals within and outside HHS who request restricted datasets and software products from HHS (
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is applicable March 14, 2018, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the new and revised routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by April 13, 2018.
The public should submit written comments, by mail or email, to Beth Kramer, HHS Privacy Act Officer, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Suite 729H, Washington, DC 20201, or
General questions about the system of records should be submitted by mail, email, or phone to Beth Kramer, HHS Privacy Act Officer, at 200 Independence Avenue SW, Suite 729H, Washington, DC 20201;
This department-wide system of records was established April 2015 (see 80 FR 17447) and has not been previously revised. It covers records about individuals within and outside HHS who request restricted datasets and software products from HHS, when HHS maintains the requester records in a system from which they are retrieved directly by an individual requester's name or other personal identifier. It currently includes records maintained by three HHS Operating Divisions. It is being revised to add records maintained by a fourth Operating Division, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which NIH plans to begin retrieving directly by personal identifier, and to include three revised and five new routine uses, some of which will apply to all records in the system and some of which will apply to only NIH's records.
The alterations made to add NIH's records affect the System Location, Legal Authorities, Purposes, Retention, System Manager, and Routine Uses sections of the System of Records Notice (SORN). One new purpose was added to the “Purposes” section, which will apply to all records, not just NIH records, stating that records may be used to evaluate accomplishment of HHS functions related to the purposes of this system of records and to evaluate performance of contractors utilized by HHS to accomplish those functions. Minor wording and formatting changes have been made throughout the SORN to conform to the SORN template prescribed in OMB Circular A-108. The new and revised routine uses are as follows:
• Routine use 1 has been revised to add “including ancillary functions, such as compiling reports and evaluating program effectiveness and contractor performance.”
• Routine use 2 has been revised to add “including ancillary functions” and to add a last sentence stating: “For example, disclosure may be made to qualified experts not within the definition of HHS employees as prescribed in HHS regulations, for opinions as a part of the controlled data access process.”
• Routine use 10 has been revised to use wording prescribed in OMB Memorandum M-17-12 issued January 3, 2017.
• Routine uses 11 through 15 are new. Routine use 11 is a new routine use prescribed by OMB Memorandum M-17-12.
“Restricted” datasets and software products are those that HHS makes affirmatively available to qualified members of the public but provides subject to restrictions, because they contain identifiable data and/or anonymized data that has the potential, when combined with other data, to identify the particular individuals, such as patients or providers, whose information is represented in the data. The datasets and products are made available through an on-line or paper-based ordering and delivery system that provides them to qualified requesters electronically or by mail.
The restrictions are necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is represented in the datasets or software products. The restrictions typically limit the data requester to using the data for research, analysis, study, and aggregate statistical reporting; prohibit any attempt to identify any individual or establishment represented in the data; and require specific security measures to safeguard the data from unauthorized access. HHS is required by law to impose, monitor, and enforce the restrictions (see, for example, provisions in the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 at note). To impose and
The altered system of records will cover requester records retrieved by requesters' personal identifiers in the following four systems or any successor systems, but only to the extent that the records pertain to requesters seeking
•
•
•
•
Note that this system of records does
•
•
A report on the altered system of records has been sent to OMB and Congress in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r).
Records About Restricted Dataset Requesters, 09-90-1401
Unclassified
The address of each agency component responsible for the system of records is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The following legal authorities authorize the collection and maintenance of these records:
•
•
•
•
The purposes of this system of records are to provide restricted datasets and software products to qualified data requesters in a timely and efficient manner and consistent with applicable laws, and to enable HHS to enforce data requesters' compliance with use and security restrictions that apply to the data. Relevant HHS personnel use the records on a need-to-know basis for those purposes; specifically:
•
•
•
•
Individuals within and outside HHS who request restricted datasets and software products that HHS makes proactively available to qualified members of the public, usually for health-related scientific research and study purposes. Examples include individual researchers and records custodians, project officers, or other representatives of entities such as universities, government agencies, and research organizations.
Categories of records include:
•
•
•
•
Information in this system of records is obtained directly from the individual data requester to whom it applies, or is derived from information supplied by the individual or provided by HHS officials.
Information about an individual data requester may be disclosed to parties outside HHS, without the individual's prior, written consent, as provided in these routine uses:
1. Disclosures may be made to federal agencies and Department contractors that have been engaged by HHS to assist in accomplishment of an HHS function relating to the purposes of this system of records (including ancillary functions, such as compiling reports and evaluating program effectiveness and contractor performance) and that have a need to have access to the records in order to assist HHS in performing the activity. Any contractor will be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
2. Records may be disclosed to student volunteers, individuals working
3. CMS records may be disclosed to a CMS contractor (including but not limited to Medicare Administrative Contractors, fiscal intermediaries, and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program.
4. Records may be disclosed to another federal agency or an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency) that administers federally funded programs, or that has the authority to investigate, potential fraud, waste or abuse in federally funded programs, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by HHS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such programs.
5. When a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate public authority, whether federal, foreign, state, local, tribal, or otherwise, responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting the violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to the enforcement, regulatory, investigative, or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving entity.
6. Information may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or to a court or other tribunal, when:
a. the agency or any component thereof, or
b. any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or
c. any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or
d. the United States Government,
is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation and, by careful review, HHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that, therefore, the use of such records by the DOJ, court or other tribunal is deemed by HHS to be compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.
7. Records may be disclosed to a federal, foreign, state, local, tribal, or other public authority of the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to the hiring or retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a license, grant or other benefit. The other agency or licensing organization may then make a request supported by the written consent of the individual for further information if it so chooses. HHS will not make an initial disclosure unless the information has been determined to be sufficiently reliable to support a referral to another office within the agency or to another federal agency for criminal, civil, administrative, personnel, or regulatory action.
8. Information may be disclosed to a Member of Congress or Congressional staff member in response to a written inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained. The Congressional office does not have any greater authority to obtain records than the individual would have if requesting the records directly.
9. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if captured in an intrusion detection system used by HHS and DHS pursuant to a DHS cybersecurity program that monitors internet traffic to and from federal government computer networks to prevent a variety of types of cybersecurity incidents.
10. Disclosures may be made to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
11. Disclosure may be made to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
12. Disclosure of past performance information pertaining to contractors engaged by HHS to assist in accomplishment of an HHS function relating to the purposes of this system of records may be made to a federal agency upon request and may include information about dataset requesters.
13. NIH dataset requester records may be included in records disclosed to governmental or authorized non-governmental entities with a signed data access agreement for system data that includes records about individuals requesting and receiving restricted datasets, to use in compiling reports (such as, on the composition of biomedical and/or research workforce; authors of publications attributable to federally-funded research; information made available through third-party systems as permitted by applicants or awardees for agency grants or contracts; or grant payment information reported to federal databases).
14. When records about a requester of an NIH restricted dataset are related to an award or application for award under an NIH award program, the dataset requester records may be disclosed to the award applicant, principal investigator(s), institutional officials, trainees or others named in the application, or institutional service providers for purposes of application preparation, review, or award management, and to the public consistent with reporting and transparency standards and to the extent disclosure to the public would not cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
15. HHS may disclose records from this system of records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), General Services Administration (GSA), or other relevant
Information about a dataset requester may also be disclosed from this system of records to parties outside HHS without the individual's consent for any of the uses authorized directly in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2) and (b)(4)-(11).
Records are stored in electronic databases and hard-copy files. CMS's DUA tracking system records may also be stored on portable media.
Records are retrieved by the data requester's name, registrant/user name, User ID Number, email address, or data use agreement (DUA) number.
Records needed to enforce data use restrictions are retained for 20 years by AHRQ (see DAA-0510-2013-0003-0001), 5 years by CMS (see Nl-440-10-04), and 3 years by NIH (see DAA-0443-2013-0004-0004) after the agreement is closed, and may be kept longer if necessary for enforcement, audit, legal, or other purposes. The equivalent SAMHSA records will be retained indefinitely until a disposition schedule is approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). SAMHSA anticipates proposing a 5 year retention period to NARA. Records of payments made electronically are transmitted securely to a Payment Card Industry-compliant payment gateway for processing and are not stored. Records of payments made by check, purchase order, or wire transfer are disposed of once the funds have been received. Records are disposed of using destruction methods prescribed by NIST SP 800-88.
Records are safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including the HHS Information Technology Security Program Handbook, all pertinent National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, and OMB Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource. Records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Safeguards conform to the HHS Information Security and Privacy Program,
The safeguards include protecting the facilities where records are stored or accessed with security guards, badges and cameras, securing hard-copy records in locked file cabinets, file rooms or offices during off-duty hours, limiting access to electronic databases to authorized users based on roles and the principle of least privilege, and two-factor authentication (user ID and password), using a secured operating system protected by encryption, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems, using an SSL connection for secure encrypted transmissions, requiring encryption for records stored on removable media, and training personnel in Privacy Act and information security requirements.
An individual who wishes to know if this system of records contains records about him or her should submit a written request to the relevant System Manager at the address indicated above. The individual must verify his or her identity by providing either a notarized request or a written certification that the requester is who he or she claims to be and understands that the knowing and willful request for acquisition of a record pertaining to an individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense under the Privacy Act, subject to a five thousand dollar fine.
An individual seeking to amend the content of information about him or her in this system should contact the relevant System Manager and reasonably identify the record, specify the information contested, state the corrective action sought, and provide the reasons for the amendment, with supporting justification.
An individual who wishes to know if this system of records contains records about him or her should submit a written request to the relevant System Manager at the address indicated above. The individual must verify his or her identity by providing either a notarized request or a written certification that the requester is who he or she claims to be and understands that the knowing and willful request for acquisition of a record pertaining to an individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense under the Privacy Act, subject to a five thousand dollar fine.
None.
80 FR 17447 (April 1, 2015).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, HHS is establishing a new system of records to be maintained by HRSA System No. 09-15-0092 “HRSA Trainee Information Portal (TRIP).” The new system of records will cover data about health professionals/trainees receiving health care training supported by Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW) Federal awards (including, grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, scholarships and loans) (collectively referred to as awards), which BHW will use in evaluating the success of its programs. The new system of records is explained in the “Supplementary Information” section of this notice and fully described in the System of Records Notice (SORN) published in this notice.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by April 13, 2018.
The public should address written comments on the new system of records to Director, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHWA), BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
General questions about the system of records may be submitted to Director, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHWA), BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, BHW requires all recipients of Health Professions awards to report annual performance data to BHW to enable BHW to determine the success of its programs. The performance data must include information about health
Currently, HRSA awardees submit performance data into the Electronic Handbooks (EHBs), an enterprise grants management system at HRSA. To reduce the reporting burden on awardees, BHW is developing a data collection portal that will allow awardees to collect individual-level trainee data (consisting of the trainee's name, training program, demographic information, aspects of their training, and employment information upon completion of training) directly from trainees via online surveys. For awardees that decide to communicate with trainees for this data collection, trainee email addresses may also be included. The survey responses will be collected, monitored, and managed in the portal, and awardees will be able to transmit and submit the data electronically into EHBs. Awardees will be able to send reminders or notifications to the trainees for initial surveys or any follow-up reminders. Awardees will also have the ability to directly upload bulk individual-level data rather than key in every required data field.
Data elements collected in the portal about individual trainees will be the same as those already being collected in the EHBs; only the source and retrieval method are changing. Enabling awardees to collect individual level trainee data directly from trainees may result in more accurate annual reports to BHW. Retrieving information about individual trainees directly by trainee name or other personal identifier will improve BHW's ability to follow the trainees even after the completion of their training to find out if they are employed in health care and/or work in underserved areas, as required to evaluate the effectiveness and success of BHW health professions programs.
HRSA Trainee Data Collection Portal System, 09-15-0092.
Unclassified.
The address of the agency component responsible for the system of records is National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHWA), BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Director, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHWA), BHW, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Section 761 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294n), Health Professions Workforce Information and Analysis; Section 792 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k), Health Professions Data.
The purpose of this system of records is to provide the agency with training data about individual health professionals benefitted by health care training funded by BHW programs, so that BHW can follow the trainees even after the completion of their training to find out if they are employed in health care and/or work in underserved areas, in order to evaluate the effectiveness and success of BHW health professions programs.
The records pertain to health care professionals who are reported by awardees as benefitting from health care training supported by BHW awards.
The system will collect and store demographic, training and general employment related information about the trainees at awardee and other funding recipient locations supported by BHW awards. Records about a particular trainee will be grouped by program and will contain data elements such as those listed below:
Name; email address; HRSA unique ID; health professions training program; length of training program; National Provider Identifier (NPI) number (where applicable); enrollment status; sex; age; race; ethnicity; rural residential background status; disadvantaged background status; veteran status; BHW award received; academic years receiving BHW awards; % Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) paid; primary discipline; whether the individual received training in a primary care setting, medically underserved community, or rural area; number of hours of training received in a primary care setting, medically underserved community, or rural area; graduation/completion status; program attrition status; employment data city, state, and ZIP code; type of employment, training/employment status 1-year after graduation; employment status.
The sources of the trainee data reported to BHW will be Health Professions awardees and their trainees. Sources of the data BHW subsequently obtains to determine if trainees are employed in health care and/or work in underserved areas will include the trainees and their employers. NPI Number will be obtained from records maintained by HHS' Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Information about an individual trainee may be disclosed from this system of records to parties outside the agency without the individual's prior, written consent pursuant to these routine uses:
1. Any trainee data that a BHW awardee reports for its awards will be disclosed to that awardee organization, to use for its own award administrative purposes.
2. Records may be disclosed to agency contractors who have been engaged by the agency to assist in accomplishment of an HHS function relating to the purposes of this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to assist HHS. Any contractor will be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
3. Information may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or to a court or other tribunal, when:
a. The agency or any component thereof, or
b. any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or
c. any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or
d. the United States Government,
is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation and, by careful review, HHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that, therefore, the use of such records by the DOJ, court or other tribunal is deemed by HHS to be compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.
4. Records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records, (2) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
5. Records may be disclosed to another federal agency or federal entity, when HHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
6. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if captured in an intrusion detection system used by HHS and DHS pursuant to a DHS cybersecurity program that monitors internet traffic to and from federal government computer networks to prevent a variety of types of cybersecurity incidents.
The disclosures authorized by publication of the above routine uses pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) are in addition to other disclosures authorized directly in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(4)-(11).
The agency will maintain the records on database servers with disk storage and backup tapes.
The agency will retrieve records about an individual trainee by the trainee's name or other personal identifier, such as unique ID or email address.
BHW is developing a record retention policy and disposition schedule for Training Information Portal (TRIP) records. Until a disposition schedule has been approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the records will be retained indefinitely.
Authorized users include awardees and internal users such as government and contractor personnel who will provide support. Other than awardees, users are required to obtain favorable adjudication for a Level 5 Position of Public Trust. Government and contractor personnel who support the system must attend security training, sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and sign the Rules of Behavior, which is renewed annually. Users are given role-based access to the system on a limited need-to-know basis. All physical and logical access to the system is removed upon termination of employment. The system leverages the current HRSA EHBs process for authentication and authorization of all external awardee users.
Records are safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including the HHS Information Technology Security Program Handbook, all pertinent National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, and OMB Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource. Records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Safeguards conform to the HHS Information Security and Privacy Program,
The safeguards include protecting the facilities where records are stored or accessed with security guards, badges and cameras, securing hard-copy records in locked file cabinets, file rooms or offices during off-duty hours, limiting access to electronic databases to authorized users based on roles and the principle of least privilege, and two-factor authentication (user ID and password), using a secured operating system protected by encryption, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems, using an SSL connection for secure encrypted transmissions, requiring encryption for records stored on removable media, and training personnel in Privacy Act and information security requirements. Records that are eligible for destruction will be disposed of using secure destruction methods prescribed by NIST SP 800-88.
An individual seeking access to records about himself or herself in this system of records must submit a written request to the System Manager (see above “System Manager” section). An access request must contain the name and address of the requester, email address or other identifying information, and his/her signature. To verify the requester's identity, the signature must be notarized or the request must include the requester's written certification that he/she is the person he/she claims to be and that he/she understands that the knowing and willful request for or acquisition of records pertaining to an individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense subject to a $5,000 fine. Requesters may also ask for an accounting of disclosures that have been made of their records, if any.
An individual seeking to amend a record about him or her in this system of records must submit a written request to the System Manager (see above “System Manager” section). An amendment request must include verification of the requester's identity in the same manner required for an access request, and must reasonably identify the record and specify the information being contested, the corrective action sought, and the reasons for requesting the correction, along with supporting information to show how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant.
An individual who wishes to know if this system of records contains records about himself or herself must submit a written request to the System Manager (see above “System Manager” section) and verify his or her identity in the same manner required for an access request.
None.
None.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Tawanda Abdelmouti, Assistant Project Officer, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 350, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 435-0978 or Email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 49,333.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of the National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seeking information to improve the coordination of regulations and policies with respect to research with laboratory animals as required by the 21st Century Cures Act, Section 2034(d). The request for information is a coordinated effort of the Director of the National Institutes of Health in collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to reduce administrative burden on investigators while maintaining the integrity and credibility of research findings and protection of research animals.
The Request for Information regarding the proposed actions that the agencies have identified to improve coordination and harmonization of regulations and policies is open for public comment for a period of 90 days. Comments must be submitted electronically at
Patricia Brown, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Suite 360, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7982, phone: 301-496-7163, email:
This request for information is a coordinated effort of the Director of the National Institutes of Health in collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to reduce administrative burden on investigators while maintaining the integrity and credibility of research findings and protection of research animals.
Section 2034(d) of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) was enacted December 13, 2016 and requires that the NIH in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) complete a review of applicable regulations and policies for the care and use of laboratory animals and make revisions to reduce administrative burden on investigators. In carrying out this effort, the law requests that NIH seek put to identify ways to ensure regulations and policies are not inconsistent, overlapping, or unnecessarily duplicative.
In carrying out the review, NIH OLAW, USDA, and FDA are currently reviewing the following reports and surveys:
• Reforming Animal Research Regulations: Workshop Recommendations to Reduce Regulatory Burden, 2017, Report of an April 17, 2017 workshop organized by Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Council on Governmental Relations, with support from the National Association for Biomedical Research,
• Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century, 2016, National Academies,
• Reducing Investigators' Administrative Workload for Federally Funded Research, 2014, National Science Board, National Science Foundation,
• 2012 Faculty Workload Survey Research Report, 2014, Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP),
• Findings of the FASEB Survey on Administrative Burden, 2013, FASEB,
We are seeking the input of interested stakeholders concerning proposed actions that the agencies have identified to improve coordination and harmonization of regulations and policies. The responses received will provide critical information for final recommendations and implementation.
Input is sought on each of the following proposed actions that the agencies are considering:
1. Allow investigators to submit protocols for continuing review using a risk-based methodology.
2. Allow annual reporting to OLAW and USDA on the same reporting schedule and as a single report through a shared portal.
3. Harmonize the guidance from NIH and USDA to reduce duplicative considerations of alternatives to painful and distressful procedures.
4. Provide a minimum 60-day comment period for new OLAW policy guidance.
5. Other approaches not previously mentioned.
Feedback is sought on whether the following tools and resources are or would be helpful for reducing burden on investigators:
1. Encourage the use of sections of the AAALAC International program description in applicable parts of the OLAW Animal Welfare Assurance, for institutions accredited by AAALAC International.
2. Encourage the use of the FDP Compliance Unit Standard Procedures as a repository of best practices for standard procedures used for research with animals.
3. Encourage the use of the IACUC Administrators Association repository of best practices by IACUCs.
4. Encourage the use of new or existing tools to streamline protocol review through use of designated member review (DMR), DMR subsequent to full committee review, and/or Veterinary Verification and Consultation.
5. Expanded IACUC training activities that focus on reducing burden on investigators.
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Ready campaign, which is a national public service advertising (PSA) campaign in support of FEMA's mission and is designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to emergencies including natural and man-made disasters.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 14, 2018.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Aretha Carter, External Affairs Specialist, Federal Emergency Management Agency, (202) 288-6783,
This collection is in accordance with Executive Orders 12862 and 13571 requiring all Federal agencies to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires Federal agencies to set missions and goals and to measure agency performance against them. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires quarterly performance assessments of government programs for the purposes of assessing agency performance and improvement. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is collecting information through focus groups to improve its public service advertising campaign on disaster preparedness.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of April 4, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before June 12, 2018.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1811, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of July 19, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of June 20, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2018.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), codified at 42 U.S.C 4001,
This proposed information collection previously published in the
To qualify for the NFIP, a participating community must adopt certain minimum standards in accordance with FEMA's regulations at 44 CFR 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5. In order to verify whether communities maintain such standards, the NFIP requires participating communities to retain documentation on development taking place in the flood hazard areas within the community. 44 CFR 59.22. Such information will be made available to FEMA upon request. This information assists FEMA in evaluating the effectiveness of a community's floodplain management program and participating property owners' eligibility for flood insurance.
This reinstatement does not propose any change in the information solicited from respondents through this information collection; however, the number of burden hours has been updated to reflect changing number of respondents and responses received through this collection over time. These changes have occurred naturally, and do not result from specific action taken by FEMA.
The “Application for Participation in the NFIP” and the “NFIP and the Community Development Permit Process” are separate actions documented under the same collection.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of August 2, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of July 5, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0064, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves an application completed by airports to initiate a request to participate in TSA's Screening Partnership Program.
Send your comments by April 13, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is providing notice that it has issued an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under the authority granted in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
Nikki Harding, Assistant Chief Counsel, Civil Enforcement, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002; telephone (571) 227-4777; facsimile (571) 227-1378; email
On August 3, 2007, section 1302(a) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (the 9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53, 121 Stat. 392, gave TSA new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under title 49 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S.C., which governs transportation worker identification credentials (TWICs).
Section 1302(a) of the 9/11 Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 114(v), authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation of any surface transportation requirement under 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to TWICs under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701. TSA exercises this function under delegated authority from the Secretary.
Under 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA is required to provide the public with an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under this subsection; and include in each such summary the identifying information of each enforcement action, the type of alleged violation, the penalty or penalties proposed, and the final assessment amount of each penalty. This summary is for calendar year 2017. TSA will publish a summary of all
You can get an electronic copy of both this notice and the enforcement actions summary on the internet by—
(1) Searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) web page at
(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA provides the following summary of enforcement actions taken by TSA in calendar year 2017 under section 114(v).
Section 114(v) of 49 U.S.C. gave the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under 49 U.S.C. and for any violations of chapter 701 of 46 U.S.C., which governs TWICs. Specifically, section 114(v) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0063, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the reimbursement of expenses incurred by airport operators for the provision of law enforcement officers to support airport checkpoint screening.
Send your comments by May 14, 2018.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
TSA OLE/FAMS requires that participants in the LEO Reimbursement Program record the details of all reimbursements sought. In order to provide for the orderly tracking of reimbursements, the LEO Reimbursement Program uses TSA Form 3503, LEO Reimbursement Request, which captures and tracks reimbursement information.
The LEO Reimbursement Request form is available at
TSA estimates each respondent will spend approximately one hour to complete the request for reimbursement form, for a total annual hour burden of 3,528 hours.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Notice of a modified system of records.
A75 HUDCAPS is an Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) system that serves as a sub-ledger financial system for HUD. As of October 1, 2015, HUDCAPS is no longer HUD's core financial system/system of record due to the implementation of New Core Project Phase 1 Release 3. HUDCAPS is now a sub-ledger financial system for HUD and the Department of Treasury, Administrative Resource Center (ARC) Oracle Federal Financials serves as HUD's system of record and core financial system.
April 13, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by one of the following methods:
For general questions please contact: The Privacy Office, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3054. Individuals who are hearing- or speech-impaired may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
This notice of revision of the System of Records Notice for A75 HUDCAPS reflects the change of HUDCAPS from a core financial system to a sub-ledger financial system for HUD. The Department of Treasury, Administrative Resource Center (ARC) Oracle Federal Financials now serves as HUD's system of record and core financial system.
The following transactions remain in HUDCAPS:
• Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Section 8 programmatic transaction,
• Program Accounting System (PAS) will continue to transmit current transactional activity to HUDCAPS for posting to the HUDCAPS sub ledger, which is transmitted through NCIS to the Oracle Federal Financials G/L.
• HUD legacy subsidiary systems such as Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS), Northridge Loan System (NLS), Program Accounting System (PAS), and others continue to support program fund transactions related to grant and loan activities and continue to interface nightly with HUDCAPS.
The following routine uses have been removed from the HUDCAPS SORN completed in 2014 because HUDCAPS is no longer HUD's core financial system/system of record. HUDCAPS is now a sub-ledger financial system for HUD, and the Department of Treasury, Administrative Resource Center (ARC) Oracle Federal Financials serves as HUD's system of record and core financial system.
• The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—for reporting payments for goods and services and for reporting of discharge indebtedness;
• The General Service Administration's Federal Procurement Data System, a central repository for statistical information on Government contracting, for purposes of providing public access to Government-wide data about agency contract actions;
• The consumer reporting agencies: Disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12). Disclosures may be made from the system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). The disclosure is limited to information necessary to establish the identity of the individual, including name, social security number, and address; the amount, status, and history of the claim, and the agency or program under which the claim arose for the sole purpose of allowing the consumer reporting agency to prepare a credit report.
HUD Central Accounting and Program System (HUDCAPS, A75).
Unclassified.
HUD Headquarters, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410 and NCCIPS, Stennis Space Center, MS 29529. The backup data center is at Mid-Atlantic Data Center in Clarksville, VA 23927.
Assistant Chief Financial Officer for Systems, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 3100, Washington, DC 20410.
Sec. 113 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1950, 31 U.S.C. 66a. (Pub. L. 81-784); The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990; Executive Order 9397, as amended by Executive Order 13478; The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3543.
A75 HUDCAPS is an Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) system that serves as a sub-ledger financial system for HUD. The sub-ledger contains Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Section 8 programmatic transaction, including payments of PIH Section 8 programmatic invoices, and HUD legacy subsidiary systems such as LOCCS, NLS, PAS, and others, which will continue to support program fund transactions related to grant and loan activities and continue to interface nightly with HUDCAPS.
Grant, subsidy, project, and loan recipients; HUD personnel; vendors; brokers; bidders; managers; individuals within Disaster Assistance Programs: builders, developers, contractors, and appraisers.
The system contains the following employee/vendor information: Vendor/employee name, Vendor Number (EIN—Employer Identification Number, SSN—Social Security Number, and/or TIN—Tax Identification Number), address, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), Banking Account/Routing numbers, and financial data.
For historical purposes, HUDCAPS stores vendor records for previous travel records, which includes social security numbers, bank account numbers, and routing numbers.
These records contain information obtained from the individual who is the subject of the records, HUD personnel, financial institutions, private corporations or business partners, and Federal agencies.
1. To the U.S. Treasury—for transactions such as disbursements of funds and related adjustments;
2. To other Federal Agencies—for the purpose of debt collection to comply with statutory reporting requirements;
3. To HUD contractors when necessary to perform a function or service related to this system of records. Such recipients are required to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended U.S.C. 552a.
In addition to the routine uses described above and the disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, additional discretionary disclosures that may be applicable to this system of records notice can be found in the Department's Privacy website under Appendix 1: HUD's Routine use Inventory Notice, 80 FR 81837 (December 31, 2015).
Electronic files are stored on electronic media. There are no paper records that are maintained for this system.
Records are retrieved by name, social security number, schedule number, receipt number, voucher number, and contract number.
Retention and disposal is in accordance with Records Disposition Schedule 21, HUD Handbook 2225.6. Records are destroyed or deleted when no longer necessary for agency business in accord with applicable federal standards or in no less than seven years after last action in accord with limitations on civil actions by or against the U.S. Government (28 U.S.C. 2401 and 2415). Data records are purged or deleted from the system when eligible to be destroyed using one of the methods described by the NIST SP 800-88 Rev 1 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization” (December 17, 2014).
All HUD employees have undergone background investigations. HUD buildings are guarded and monitored by security personnel, cameras, ID checks, and other physical security measures. Access is restricted to authorized personnel or contractors whose responsibilities require access. System users must take the mandatory security
For information, assistance, or inquiry about records, contact John Bravacos, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number (202) 708-3054. When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Housing and Urban Development (HUD) system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 24 CFR part 16. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, address, and date and place of birth.
You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. In addition, your request should:
a. Explain why you believe HUD would have information on you.
b. Identify which Office of HUD you believe has the records about you.
c. Specify when you believe the records would have been created.
d. Provide any other information that will help the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), staff determine which HUD office may have responsive records.
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying their agreement for you to access their records. Without the above information, the HUD FOIA Office may not conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with regulations.
The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16, Procedures for Inquiries. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting John Bravacos, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officers, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to HUD's Privacy Office at the addresses provided above or the component's FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at
None.
Docket No. FR-5763-N-03.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (Council). A Federal advisory committee, the Council was created in part to foster partnerships to enhance public awareness of the importance of aquatic resources and the social and economic benefits of recreational fishing and boating in the United States. This meeting is open to the public, and anyone interested may make oral statements to the Council or file written statements for consideration.
The meeting will take place April 4, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) and April 5, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. For deadlines and directions on registering to attend the meeting, submitting written material, and/or giving an oral presentation, please see Public Input under
The meeting will be held at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Room 5160, Washington, DC 20240.
Linda Friar, Designated Federal Officer, Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Mailstop FAC, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone (703) 358-2056; fax (703) 358-2487; or email
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council will hold a meeting April 4 and 5, 2018.
The Council was formed in January 1993 under the provisions of 41 CFR 101-6.1007 to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on aquatic conservation endeavors that benefit recreational fishery resources and recreational boating and that encourage partnerships among industry, the public, and government. The Council represents the interests of the public and private sectors of the recreational fishing, boating, and conservation communities and is organized to enhance partnerships among industry, constituency groups, and government. The 18-member Council, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, includes, as ex officio members, the Service Director and the president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Other Council members are directors from State agencies responsible for managing recreational fish and wildlife resources and individuals who represent the interests of saltwater and freshwater recreational fishing, recreational boating, the recreational fishing and boating industries, recreational fisheries resource conservation, Native American tribes, aquatic resource outreach and education organizations, and tourism. Additional background information on the Council is available at
An abbreviated list of planned agenda items for the meeting includes:
• Review the Report to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Subject: Response to Secretary's Order 3347—Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation which was prepared by the Assistant Secretaries for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and Land and Minerals Management; this report provides recommendations to enhance and expand recreational fishing access;
• Based on the report, develop consensus-based Council recommendations to enhance and expand recreational fishing access;
• Hear and discuss updates on several U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs and other Council business.
The final agenda will be posted on the internet at
The Council meeting will be held at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Room 5160, Washington, DC 20240. Signs will be posted to direct attendees to the specific conference room. Individuals who plan to attend must bring a form of identification and pass through a security checkpoint.
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed above in Public Input, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, or one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
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.
Individuals or groups who request to make an oral presentation during the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, in writing (preferably via email; see
The Council's Designated Federal Officer will maintain meeting minutes (see
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will take place.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 3, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
The meeting will be held at the Department of the Interior building, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240 in the South Penthouse Conference Room. Send your comments to Group Federal Officer by email to
Mr. John Mahoney, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 909 First Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98104; by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 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.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before February 24, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by March 29, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 24, 2018. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
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.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource:
A request to move has been received for the following resource:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The investigation is terminated.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on July 1, 2016, based on a Complaint filed by Fujifilm Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts (collectively, “Fujifilm”). 81 FR 43243-44 (July 1, 2016). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the sale for importation, importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. patent Nos. 6,641,891 (“the ’891 patent”); 6,703,106 (“the ’106 patent”); 6,703,101 (“the ’101 patent”); 6,767,612 (“the ’612 patent”); 8,236,434 (“the ’434 patent”); and 7,355,805 (“the ’805 patent”). The Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's Notice of Investigation named as respondents Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Sony”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation. The Commission later terminated the investigation as to the ’101 patent. Order No. 24 (Jan. 18, 2017); Notice (Feb. 15, 2017).
On September 1, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the ’891 patent and asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’612 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect to asserted claims 9-11 of the ’612 patent; asserted claim 2, 5, and 6 of the ’106 patent; asserted claim 1 of the ’434 patent; and asserted claims 3 and 10 of the ’805 patent.
In particular, the Final ID finds that Sony's accused products infringe claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the ’891 patent and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’612 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final ID also finds that Sony's accused products do not infringe claims 2, 5, and 6 of the ’106 patent, claim 1 of the ’434 patent, and claims 3 and 10 of the ’805 patent. The Final ID also finds that Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the ’891 patent, the ’612 patent, the ’434 patent, or the ’805 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112. The Final ID further finds, however that, while, Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the ’106 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, Sony has shown that the asserted claims of the ’106 patent are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112. The Final ID also finds that Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’891 patent and the ’612 patent, but has not satisfied the technical prong with respect to the ’106 patent, the ’434 patent, and the ’805 patent. The Final ID further finds that Fujifilm has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’891, ’612, and ’106 patent pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) for the asserted LTO-6 DI products. The Final ID finds that Fujifilm has not satisfied the economic prong requirement for the asserted LTO-7 DI products.
The Final ID finds Sony has not shown that the ’891, ’106, and ’805 patents are essential to the LTO-7 Standard. The Final ID also finds that Fujifilm has not breached any provisions of the Fujifilm AP-75 agreement, in particular sections 8.2 or 11.11. The Final ID further finds that Sony has not shown that the AP-75 agreement warrants barring Fujifilm's claims or terminating the investigation. The Final ID also finds that patent misuse does apply to bar Fujifilm's claims and that Fujifilm has not waived its rights to enforce the patents-in-suit. The Final ID also finds that Sony does not have an implied license to the patents-in-suit. The Final ID further finds that Sony has not shown that patent exhaustion applies.
On September 12, 2017, the ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. As instructed by the Commission, the ALJ also made findings concerning the public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1). See 81 FR 43243; 19 CFR 210.10(b). The ALJ recommended that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Sony. The ALJ recommended that the Commission require no bond during the period of Presidential review. The ALJ further found that public interest factors do not bar or require tailoring the recommended exclusion order. The ALJ also found that even if the asserted claims are essential, the public interest does not favor tailoring or curbing and exclusion order because Fujifilm did not breach its obligations under the AP-75 Agreement.
On September 18, 2017, Sony and OUII each filed petitions for review of various aspects of the Final ID. Also on September 18, 2017, Fujifilm filed a contingent petition for review of various aspects of the Final ID. On September 26, 2017, Fujifilm, Sony, and OUII filed responses to the various petitions for review.
On October 6, 2017, Fujifilm filed a post-RD statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). Sony filed its statement on October 13, 2017. No responses were filed by the public in response to the post-RD Commission Notice issued on September 13, 2017.
On December 12, 2017, the Commission determined to review the Final ID in part. Notice (Dec. 12, 2017); 82 FR 60038-41 (Dec. 18, 2017).
Specifically, the Commission determined to review-in-part the Final ID's finding of violation with respect to the ’891 patent. In particular, the Commission determined to review the
The Commission also determined to review-in-part the Final ID's finding of violation with respect to the ’612 patent. Specifically, the Commission determined to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the ’612 patent are not obvious. Accordingly, the Commission also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’612 patent.
The Commission further determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the ’106 patent. Specifically, the Commission determined not to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the ’106 patent are invalid as indefinite. Accordingly, the Commission determined to review the Final ID's findings with respect to the remaining issues with respect to the ’106 Patent.
The Commission also determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the ’434 patent. Specifically the Commission determined to review the Final ID's finding that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe claim 1 of the ’434 patent. The Commission also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm's LTO-7 DI products do not practice claim 1. The Commission further determined to review the Final ID's finding that claim 1 is not obvious.
The Commission further determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the ’805 patent. Specifically, the Commission determined to review the Final ID's finding that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe asserted claims 3 and 10 of the ’805 patent. The Commission also determined to review the Final ID's finding that U.S. patent No. 6,710,967 (“Hennecken”) does not anticipate claims 3 and 10.
The Commission also determined to review the Final ID's findings that the asserted claims of the '612, '106, and '805 patents are not essential to the LTO-7 Standard.
The Commission further determined to review the Final ID's findings concerning the economic prong of the domestic industry.
The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the Final ID.
In its notice of review, the Commission posed several briefing questions to the parties, and requested briefing on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 82 FR at 60040. On January 3, 2018, the parties submitted their initial responses to the Commission's briefing questions. On January 12, 2018, the parties filed their reply submissions.
On December 26, 2017, Quantum Corporation filed a submission in response to the Commission's notice. On January 2, 2018, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company filed a submission in response to the Commission's notice. On January 3, 2018, International Business Machines Corporation filed a submission in response to the Commission's notice.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the Final ID, the petitions for review, the responses thereto, and the parties' submissions on review, the Commission has determined to find that a violation of section 337 has occurred with respect to the asserted claims of the '891 patent. The Commission has found no violation with respect to the '612, '106, '434, and '805 patents.
The Commission affirms with modification the Final ID's findings that the asserted claims of the '891 patent are not invalid as anticipated or obvious.
The Commission finds that Sony has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the '612 patent are prima facie obvious over the asserted prior art and that there are no secondary considerations that overcome this finding. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Fujifilm has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement by failing to show that its domestic industry products practice a valid claim of the '612 patent. The Commission has further determined not to reach the Final ID's findings concerning the technical prong with respect to the '612 Patent.
The Commission determined not to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '106 patent are invalid as indefinite. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to reach the Final ID's findings on the remaining issues with respect to the '106 patent.
With respect to the '434 patent, the Commission has determined to construe the limitations “a power spectrum density at a pitch of 10 micrometers ranges from 800 to 10,000 nm
The Commission has determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused LTO-7 tapes infringe claims 3 and 10 of the '805 patent. The Commission has also determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding that the asserted prior art does not anticipate the asserted claims of the '805 patent. The Commission also corrects the misstatement in the Final ID's “Conclusions of Fact and Law” that Fujifilm failed to satisfy the technical prong with respect to the '805 patent.
The Commission has determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '612, '106, and '805 patents are not essential to the LTO-7 Standard. In particular, with respect to the '106 patent, the Commission has determined not to reach the issue of whether the LTO-7 Standard requires a tape having a magnetic layer that contains an abrasive. The Commission has determined to otherwise adopt the Final ID's findings that the LTO-7 Standard does not require practice of the asserted claims of the '612, '106, and '805 Patents. The Commission has determined not to reach any other issues concerning Sony's essentiality defenses.
The Commission has determined to find that Fujifilm's plant and equipment and labor and capital investments in its LTO-6 domestic industry products are significant under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), thus satisfying the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '891 patent. The Commission has determined
Accordingly, the Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order against Sony's products that infringe claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the '891 patent, and a cease and desist order against each of the Sony respondents. The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections 337(d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order. The Commission has, however, determined to exempt Sony's magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same that are imported or used for the purpose of supporting Sony's warranty, service, repair, and compliance verification obligations. The Commission has further determined to set a bond at zero (0) percent of entered value during the Presidential review period (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On March 8, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States' claim under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607, against the El Paso County Retirement Plan for recovery of past response costs incurred at the Widefield PCE Superfund Site (“Site”) in El Paso County, Colorado. The Site comprises a former dry cleaners at 3217 South Academy Boulevard in Colorado Springs and related contamination of soil and groundwater, including of the Widefield Aquifer. The El Paso County Retirement Plan was the owner of the 3217 South Academy Boulevard property at the time of disposal of hazardous substances. The proposed Consent Decree requires the El Paso County Retirement Plan to pay $420,000 in reimbursement of past response costs incurred by the United States with respect to the Site. The proposed Consent Decree provides the El Paso County Retirement Plan with a covenant not to sue for past response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Site and contribution protection under CERCLA.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $3.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On February 27, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed consent decree resolves claims of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) against seven defendants—Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC; Cargill, Inc.; Flowserve Corporation; Kelsey-Hayes Company; NCR Corporation; Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, and Waste Management of Ohio (collectively “Defendants)—for response costs and injunctive relief with respect to the North Sanitary (aka “Valleycrest”) Landfill Superfund Site in Dayton, Ohio (“Site”). A complaint, which was filed simultaneously with the proposed consent decree, alleges that the Defendants are liable under Sections 106, 107(a), and 113(g)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607(a), and 9613(g)(2). Under the proposed consent decree, the defendants will perform the remedy selected by EPA to address contamination at the Site by, among other things, designing and constructing a landfill “cap” that will cover approximately 70 acres of the Site. Other significant remedial actions will include the design and construction of a system to address landfill gas, as well as a system to prevent leachate from contaminating groundwater. Additionally, the Defendants will reimburse EPA for its future response costs, but they will not reimburse EPA for its future oversight costs unless and until such costs, together with past response costs and interim costs incurred before entry of the consent decree, exceed $8.37 million. The proposed consent decree will provide
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $84.50 (338 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the Appendices and signature pages, the cost is $20.75.
On March 6, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas a proposed modification to the consent decree entered by the Court on March 26, 2010 in the lawsuit entitled
The consent decree resolved claims asserted by the United States against Westar Energy, Inc. (“Westar”) under various provisions of the Clean Air Act (“Act”). Those claims related to Westar's operation of the Jeffrey Energy Center (“JEC”), a coal-fired power plant in St. Marys, Kansas with three electric generating units, numbered 1 through 3. The United States alleged in primary part that Westar made major modifications to JEC without obtaining a permit under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
The Consent Decree requires Westar, among other things, to install and operate Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”) on one of the JEC units and, at Westar's election, either install a second SCR or meet a plant-wide 30-day rolling average emission rate of 0.100 lb/mmBTU NO
The proposed modification to the Consent Decree would require Westar to meet a 30-Day Rolling Average Unit Emission Rate for NO
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the modification to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the modification to the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 13, 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-WHD, 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 by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll information collection. The Copeland Act requires contractors and subcontractors performing work on Federally financed or assisted construction contracts to furnish weekly a statement with respect to the wages paid each employee during the preceding week.
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).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 13, 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
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses information collection. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHAct) and regulations 29 CFR part 1904 prescribe that certain employers maintain records of job related injuries and illnesses. The OSHA uses the information to carry out enforcement and intervention activities to secure for workers a safe and healthful work environment. The data also provide the Bureau of Labor Statistics information to report on the number and rate of occupational injuries and illnesses in the country. In addition, the data inform employers and workers on the kinds of injuries and illnesses occurring in the workplace and their related hazards. Increased employer awareness should result in the identification and voluntary correction of hazardous workplace conditions. Likewise, workers who receive information on injuries and illnesses will be more likely to follow safe work practices and report workplace hazards. This would generally raise the overall level of safety and health in the workplace. OSH Act sections 8(c)(2) and 24(b)(2) authorize 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 (NASA).
Notice of information collection—CORRECTION.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Lori Parker, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1351.
Supersonic flight over land is currently restricted in the U.S. and many countries because sonic boom noise disturbs people on the ground and can potentially damage private property. NASA is researching the public acceptability of quiet commercial supersonic flight. As sufficient research is assembled, there is potential for a change in federal and international regulations.
The 2018 Quiet Supersonic Flight Community Response Test will correlate human annoyance response with low level supersonic exposure in a community setting. The supersonic exposure will be generated with an F-18 research aircraft performing a specialized maneuver. This effort is designed to evaluate remote aircraft basing and operations, community engagement, sonic boom measurements, and community annoyance surveys. The effort will improve research methods for future community-scale response testing using a purpose-built, low boom flight demonstration aircraft (LBFD).
NASA supported a prior risk reduction field test to evaluate data collection methods for low boom community response at Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB) in November 2011. The annoyance response findings from the study are not readily generalizable to a larger population, as the residents at EAFB are accustomed to hearing full level sonic booms on a routine basis.
Web-Based/Electronic.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden hours of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit issued.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email:
On December 4, 2017, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
1. Daniel Costa Permit No. 2018-016.
The National Transportation Safety Board has cancelled the Sunshine Act meeting previously scheduled for Tuesday, March 13, 2018, at the NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC The matter scheduled to be considered at the Sunshine Act meeting concerned Railroad Accident Brief—Collision of Two Southwestern Railroad Freight Trains, Roswell, New Mexico, April 28, 2015. A rescheduled date has not been determined yet.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on revised information collection requests (ICR), Verification of Who is Getting Payments RI 38-107 and RI 38-147.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 13, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0197) was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
RI 38-107 is designed for use by the Retirement Inspection Branch when OPM, for any reason, must verify that the entitled person is indeed receiving the monies payable. RI 38-147 collects the same information and is used by other groups within Retirement Operations. Failure to collect this information would cause OPM to pay monies absent the assurance of a correct payee.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection (ICR), Marital Status Certification Survey, RI 25-7.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 13, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0033) was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
RI 25-7 is used to determine whether widows, widowers, and former spouses receiving survivor annuities from OPM have remarried before reaching age 55 and, thus, are no longer eligible for benefits.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) to add a second Step-Up Tier under footnote 2. The Exchange currently offers one Step-Up Tier that provides Members with an additional way to qualify for an enhanced rebate where they increase their liquidity each month over a predetermined baseline. Under the current Step-Up Tier, a Member receives a rebate of $0.0030 per share for qualifying orders which yield fee codes B,
The Exchange now proposes to amend footnote 2 to add a second Step-Up Tier under which the volume measured to determine whether a Member qualifies is performed on a Member Participant Identifier (“MPID”) by MPID basis.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
Volume-based rebates such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii) introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because it will continue to provide Members with an incentive to reach certain thresholds on the Exchange.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Step-Up Tier is a reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange based on increasing their volume above a predetermined baseline. The Exchange further believes that the proposed Step-Up Tier represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because the thresholds necessary to achieve the tier encourages Members to add increased liquidity to the BZX Book
The Exchange does not believe its proposed tier would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed tier represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed tier would burden competition, but instead, enhance competition, as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of and draw additional volume to the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe the proposed tier would burden intramarket competition as it would apply to all Members uniformly. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to introduce its Acceptable Trade Range protection for orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers an Acceptable Trade Range (“ATR”) protection that prevents the execution of quotes and orders on the regular order book outside of set thresholds. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance this ATR protection for orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan (“Linkage Plan”) instead of being executed immediately on the Exchange or resting on the regular order book.
As codified in Rule 714(b)(1), the Exchange's trading system calculates an Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order or quote will be allowed to execute.
Currently, the trading system calculates an appropriate reference price for an incoming order or quote when that order or quote rests or trades on the regular order book but not when orders are routed to an away market pursuant to the Linkage Plan without first trading on the Exchange. The Exchange now proposes to enhance its ATR protection by applying it to orders that are routed to away markets without first trading on the Exchange. As proposed, Rule 714(a)(1) will continue to provide that the reference price for the ATR protection is the NBB for sell orders/quotes and the NBO for buy orders/quotes. For clarity, however, the Exchange proposes to move this language to a separate bullet under proposed Rule 714(a)(1)(ii). In addition, proposed Rule 714(a)(1)(ii) will indicate that the reference price is calculated upon receipt of a new order or quote, provided that if the applicable NBB or NBO price is improved at the time an order is routed to an away market, a new reference price is calculated based on the NBB or NBO at that time.
Although the Exchange will continue to use the NBB or NBO as the reference price for the ATR protection, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to update the reference price if the applicable NBB or NBO price is improved at the time an order is routed to an away market. Orders that are routed to away markets are eligible for the “Flash” auction process described in Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901. When a Flash auction is initiated, members are given an opportunity to enter responses to trade with the order for a time period established by the Exchange not to exceed one (1) second.
The Exchange proposes to launch the ATR functionality described in this proposed rule change no later than October 31, 2018. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of this functionality in an Options Trader Alert issued to members prior to the launch date.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by enhancing the Exchange's ATR protection. The ATR functionality is designed to ensure that orders and quotes entered on the Exchange are executed at reasonable prices based on the applicable NBBO price on receipt. Currently, the Exchange's ATR protection calculates a reference price at the time an order or quote rests or trades locally but not when an order is routed to an away market pursuant to the Linkage Plan without first trading on the Exchange. To further protect orders that are subject to routing that have not traded on the Exchange, the Exchange is proposing to implement the ATR protection for those orders. The Exchange will continue to use the NBBO as the reference price for the ATR protection but now that the Exchange is protecting orders that are routed away pursuant to the Linkage Plan without trading on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to use the NBBO price on routing instead of the NBBO on receipt only in those circumstances where the NBBO is improved at the time of routing. As described earlier in this proposed rule change, the Exchange operates a Flash auction that provides an opportunity for Members to match or improve the NBBO price prior to routing eligible orders to away markets. Since the NBBO price may change during the Flash auction's exposure period, the Exchange believes that the ATR protection should take improved NBBO prices into account when determining whether a particular price is a reasonable execution price. The Exchange believes, however, that a worsened NBBO price should not be considered as this would decrease rather than increase the protection
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to enhance the Exchange's ATR protection by extending that protection to orders that are routed to away markets that did not first trade on the Exchange. The proposed protection will apply equally to all orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Linkage Plan. The Exchange believes that this change is the result of a competitive market where exchanges must continually improve the functionality offered to market participants in order to remain competitive.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
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”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 12214(e)(1) and 12904(g)(5) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”) and FINRA Rules 13214(e)(1) and 13904(g)(5) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”) (together, “Codes”) to eliminate the $400 fee for an explained decision.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a)-(d) No change.
(e) Payment for Explained Decisions
(1) The chairperson who is responsible for writing an explained decision pursuant to Rule 12904(g) will receive an additional honorarium of $400. [The panel will allocate the cost of the honorarium under Rule 12904(g) to the parties.]
(2) No change.
(a)-(f) No change.
(g) Explained Decisions
(1)-(4) No change.
(5) The chairperson will receive an additional honorarium of $400 for writing the explained decision, as required by this paragraph (g). [The panel will allocate the cost of the chairperson's honorarium to the parties as part of the final award.]
(6) No change.
(h)-(j) No change.
(a)-(d) No change.
(e) Payment for Explained Decisions
(1) The chairperson who is responsible for writing an explained decision pursuant to Rule 13904(g) will receive an additional honorarium of $400. [The panel will allocate the cost of the honorarium under Rule 13904(g) to the parties.]
(2) No change.
(a)-(f) No change.
(g) Explained Decisions
(1)-(4) No change.
(5) The chairperson will receive an additional honorarium of $400 for writing the explained decision, as required by this paragraph (g). [The panel will allocate the cost of the chairperson's honorarium to the parties as part of the final award.]
(6) No change.
(h)-(j) No change.
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.
In 2009, the Commission approved amendments to the Codes that required arbitrators to provide an explained decision at the parties' joint request.
The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rules 12214(e)(1) and 13214(e)(1) (Payment of Arbitrators) and FINRA Rules 12904(g)(5) and 13904(g)(5) (Explained Decisions) to remove the provision that gives arbitrators express authority to allocate the $400 fee to the parties for an explained decision. By proposing to remove this provision, if parties jointly request an explained decision, the chairperson drafting the decision would receive $400 as currently provided in the rules;
As noted in Item 2 of this filing, FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date will be February 21, 2018.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) 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. A discussion of the economic impacts of the proposed amendments follows.
FINRA began waiving the $400 fee for an explained decision as of January 2017. The proposal codifies and thereby makes permanent the elimination of the explained decision fee.
The economic baseline for the proposal includes the current rules under the Codes that address the allocation of fees by arbitrators. The economic baseline for the proposal also includes the current practice of FINRA waiving the explained decision fee. The proposal is expected to affect parties to an arbitration including customers, member firms, and associated persons.
Parties must make a joint request for an explained decision prior to the first scheduled hearing. Parties can benefit from an explained decision through a better understanding of the arbitrators' rationale for the award decision. An explained decision, however, could increase the time to resolution by providing parties with an additional basis to file a motion to vacate.
In order for parties to agree to a joint request, both parties would need to determine that the benefits of an explained decision are greater than its costs. In general, joint requests for an explained decision have been few. Since the explained decision rule became effective in 2009 until the end of 2016, there have been 40 joint requests for explained decisions with 32 explained decisions issued. There have been two additional joint requests after FINRA began waiving the explained decision fee in January 2017.
FINRA began waiving the explained decision fee in January 2017. Parties, however, could again be subject to a fee if FINRA were to decide to no longer waive the fee. The potential that FINRA may no longer waive the explained decision fee could be a constraint and thereby reduce the number of parties that make a joint request.
The primary benefit of the proposal is the permanent removal of the fee that could be a barrier to jointly requesting an explained decision. To the extent that a potential fee is a constraint, its removal from the Codes could increase the number of joint requests made by parties. The parties that would be more likely to file a joint request are the parties for which the benefits of an explained decision are greater than its costs not including the potential fee. Other than the permanent elimination of the fee, the benefits and costs of an explained decision would remain the same.
Whether the proposed rule change would result in any additional requests for an explained decision could be dependent on whether the fee is a factor in their decision to make a joint request. As noted above, few parties jointly requested an explained decision prior to FINRA waiving the fee, and there have been only two joint requests for an explained decision since the waiver. This evidence suggests that non-monetary costs, other than the $400 fee, are more significant determinants of whether parties make a joint request. The removal of the fee from the Codes, therefore, is likely to have little effect on the frequency of requests made. The benefits and costs of the proposal are therefore also likely to be negligible.
A plausible alternative to the proposed amendments is an explained decision fee that is greater than zero but less than the $400 currently stated in the Codes. Similar to the current proposed amendments, this alternative would permanently establish the fee amount if parties jointly request an explained decision. A fee greater than zero but less than $400, however, would increase the costs to parties relative to the current proposal that seeks to eliminate the fee, thereby potentially reducing their incentives to make a joint request. As discussed above, the evidence suggests that the other potential costs of an explained decision are more significant determinants of whether parties make a joint request. This alternative, therefore, would increase the costs to parties that make a joint request but would have little effect on the frequency of requests made.
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 Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to introduce its Acceptable Trade Range protection for orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers an Acceptable Trade Range (“ATR”) protection that prevents the execution of quotes and orders on the regular order book outside of set thresholds. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance this ATR protection for orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan (“Linkage Plan”) instead of being executed immediately on the Exchange or resting on the regular order book.
As codified in Rule 714(b)(1), the Exchange's trading system calculates an Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order or quote will be allowed to execute.
Currently, the trading system calculates an appropriate reference price for an incoming order or quote when that order or quote rests or trades on the regular order book but not when orders are routed to an away market pursuant to the Linkage Plan without first trading on the Exchange. The Exchange now proposes to enhance its ATR protection by applying it to orders that are routed to away markets without first trading on the Exchange. As proposed, Rule 714(a)(1) will continue to provide that the reference price for the ATR protection is the NBB for sell orders/quotes and the NBO for buy orders/quotes. For clarity, however, the Exchange proposes to move this language to a separate bullet under proposed Rule 714(a)(1)(ii). In addition, proposed Rule 714(a)(1)(ii) will indicate that the reference price is calculated upon receipt of a new order or quote, provided that if the applicable NBB or NBO price is improved at the time an order is routed to an away market, a new reference price is calculated based on the NBB or NBO at that time.
Although the Exchange will continue to use the NBB or NBO as the reference price for the ATR protection, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to update the reference price if the applicable NBB or NBO price is improved at the time an order is routed to an away market. Orders that are routed to away markets are eligible for the “Flash” auction process described in Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901. When a Flash auction is initiated, members are given an opportunity to enter responses to trade with the order for a time period established by the Exchange not to exceed one (1) second.
The Exchange proposes to launch the ATR functionality described in this proposed rule change no later than October 31, 2018. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of this functionality in an Options Trader Alert issued to members prior to the launch date.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by enhancing the Exchange's ATR protection. The ATR functionality is designed to ensure that orders and quotes entered on the Exchange are executed at reasonable prices based on the applicable NBBO price on receipt. Currently, the Exchange's ATR protection calculates a reference price at the time an order or quote rests or trades locally but not when an order is routed to an away market pursuant to the Linkage Plan without first trading on the Exchange. To further protect orders that are subject to routing that have not traded on the Exchange, the Exchange is proposing to implement the ATR protection for those orders. The Exchange will continue to use the NBBO as the reference price for the ATR protection but now that the Exchange is protecting orders that are routed away pursuant to the Linkage Plan without trading on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to use the NBBO price on routing instead of the NBBO on receipt only in those circumstances where the NBBO is improved at the time of routing. As described earlier in this proposed rule change, the Exchange operates a Flash auction that provides an opportunity for Members to match or improve the NBBO price prior to routing eligible orders to away markets. Since the NBBO price may change during the Flash auction's exposure period, the Exchange believes that the ATR protection should take improved NBBO prices into account when determining whether a particular price is a reasonable execution price. The Exchange believes, however, that a worsened NBBO price should not be considered as this would decrease rather than increase the protection provided to such an order. In sum, the proposed changes to the ATR protection will protect investors and the public interest by providing additional protections designed to ensure that quotes and orders entered on the Exchange are executed at reasonable prices, and thereby perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to enhance the Exchange's ATR protection by extending that protection to orders that are routed to away markets that did not first trade on the Exchange. The proposed protection will apply equally to all orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Linkage Plan. The Exchange believes that this change is the result of a competitive market where exchanges must continually improve the functionality offered to market participants in order to remain competitive.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 13h-1 and Form 13H under Section 13(h) of the Exchange Act established a large trader reporting framework.
The identification, recordkeeping, and reporting framework provides the Commission with a mechanism to identify large traders and obtain additional information on their trading activity. Specifically, the rule requires large traders to identify themselves to the Commission and make certain disclosures to the Commission on Form 13H. Upon receipt of Form 13H, the Commission issues a unique identification number to the large trader, which the large trader then provides to its registered broker-dealers. Certain registered broker-dealers are required to maintain transaction records for each large trader, and are required to report that information to the Commission upon request.
The respondents to the collection of information are large traders. There are currently approximately 6,300 large traders and 300 registered broker-dealers. Based on its experience collecting initial Forms 13H in previous years, the Commission estimates that approximately 600 new large traders will register each year and thus be subject to quarterly and annual reporting requirements over the next three years.
Each new large trader respondent files one response, which takes approximately 20 hours to complete. The average internal cost of compliance per response is $5,615, calculated as follows: (3 hours of compliance manager time at $307 per hour) + (7 hours of legal time at $362 per hour) + (10 hours of paralegal time at $212 per hour) = $5,615. Additionally, on average, each large trader respondent (including new respondents) files 2 responses per year, which take approximately 6 hours to complete. The average internal cost of compliance per response is $1,770, calculated as follows: (2 hours of compliance manager time at $307 per hour) + (2 hours of legal time at $362 per hour) + (2 hours of paralegal time at $212 per hour) = $1,770.
Each registered broker-dealer's monitoring requirement takes approximately 15 hours per year. The average internal cost of compliance is $5,430, calculated as follows: 15 hours of legal time at $362 per hour = $5,430. The Commission estimates that it may send 100 requests specifically seeking large trader data per year to each registered broker-dealer subject to the rule, and it would take each registered broker-dealer 2 hours to comply with each request. Accordingly, the annual reporting hour burden for a broker-dealer is estimated to be 200 burden hours (100 requests × 2 burden hours/request = 200 burden hours). The average internal cost of compliance per response is $432, calculated as follows: 2 hours of paralegal time at $212 per hour = $432.
Compliance with Rule 13h-1 is mandatory. The information collection under proposed Rule 13h-1 is considered confidential subject to the limited exceptions provided by the Freedom of Information Act.
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.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17f-1 (17 CFR 270.17f-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a) is entitled: “Custody of Securities with Members of National Securities Exchanges.” Rule 17f-1 provides that any registered management investment company (“fund”) that wishes to place its assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member may do so only under a written contract that must be ratified initially and approved annually by a majority of the fund's board of directors. The written contract also must contain certain specified provisions. In addition, the rule requires an independent public accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of the exchange member at least three times during the fund's fiscal year. The rule requires the written contract and the certificate of each examination to be transmitted to the Commission. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safekeeping of fund assets.
Commission staff estimates that each fund makes 1 response and spends an average of 3.5 hours annually in complying with the rule's requirements. Commission staff estimates that on an annual basis it takes: (i) 0.5 hours for the board of directors
Funds that rely on rule 17f-1 generally use outside counsel to prepare the custodial contract for the board's review and to transmit the contract to the Commission. Commission staff estimates the cost of outside counsel to perform these tasks for a fund each year is $800.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information required by rule 17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to adopt a new tier under footnote 1, Add/Remove Volume Tiers. The Exchange currently offers six tiers under footnote 1 that offer reduced fees for displayed orders that add liquidity yielding fee codes B,
The Exchange proposes to add a new tier under footnote 1, to be known as Tier 10, under which a Member would receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0017 per share on orders that yield fee codes BB, N and W, where a Member has: (i) A Step-Up Remove TCV
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
In addition, volume-based fees such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii) the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates, because it will provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on the Exchange.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed Tier 10 to be added to footnote 1 is equitably allocated and reasonable because it will reward a Member's growth pattern on the Exchange and such increased volume will allow the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand its incentive programs. The Exchange further believes that the proposed tier is reasonable, fair and equitable because the liquidity from the proposed change would benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. The Exchange also believes the proposed rebate of $0.0017 per share for Tier 10 is reasonable in that it is equivalent to the top tier rebate to remove liquidity provided by Nasdaq BX.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. The proposed rates would apply uniformly to all Members, and Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Further, excessive fees would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members rather than burdening competition. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 21, 2017, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Funds under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares. In total, the Exchange is proposing to list and trade Shares of twelve monthly series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy ETF. Each Fund will be an index-based exchange traded fund (“ETF”). The Funds will include the following: Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (January) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (February) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (March) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (April) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (May) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (June) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (July) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (August) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (September) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (October) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (November) ETF; and Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (December) ETF. Each Fund will be based on the Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced Growth Index (Month) Series, where “Month” is the corresponding month associated with the roll date of the applicable Fund (each an “Index” and, collectively, the “Indexes”).
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on February 9, 2012. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Funds on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
Each Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective Index. The value of each Index is calculated daily by Cboe Options utilizing an option valuation model. The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Indexes for the Funds do not meet the listing requirements of BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3) applicable to an index that consists of equity securities. Specifically, the Indexes for the Funds do not meet the listing requirements of BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3) because the Indexes consist of options based on an index of U.S. Component Stocks.
Each Index is a rules-based options index that consists exclusively of FLexible EXchange Options on the S&P 500 Index (“FLEX Options”) listed on Cboe Options.
Each Index is designed to provide the following outcomes between Roll Dates:
•
•
•
Each Index includes a mix of purchased and written (sold) put and call FLEX Options structured to achieve the results described above. Such results are only applicable for each full 12-month period from one Roll Date to the next Roll Date, and the Index may not return such results for shorter or longer periods. The value of each Index is calculated daily by Cboe Options utilizing a rules-based options valuation model.
Under Normal Market Conditions,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the proposal, each Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective Index, each of which consists of a hypothetical portfolio of purchased and written (sold) put and call FLEX Options structured to participate in market gains and losses of the S&P 500 Index within pre-determined ranges that are only applicable for a full 12-month period from one Roll Date to the next Roll Date. Specifically, on each Roll Date, the applicable Index implements a portfolio of put and call FLEX Options with expirations on the next Roll Date that,
Interested persons are invited to submit written views, data, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by April 4, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 18, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 204(b)-1 (17 CFR 275.204(b)-1) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1
Form PF is designed to facilitate the Financial Stability Oversight Council's (“FSOC”) monitoring of systemic risk in the private fund industry and to assist FSOC in determining whether and how
Form PF divides respondents into two broad groups, Large Private Fund Advisers and smaller private fund advisers. “Large Private Fund Advisers” are advisers with at least $1.5 billion in assets under management attributable to hedge funds (“large hedge fund advisers”), advisers that manage “liquidity funds” and have at least $1 billion in combined assets under management attributable to liquidity funds and registered money market funds (“large liquidity fund advisers”), and advisers with at least $2 billion in assets under management attributable to private equity funds (“large private equity advisers”). All other respondents are considered smaller private fund advisers.
The Commission estimates that most filers of Form PF have already made their first filing, and so the burden hours applicable to those filers will reflect only ongoing burdens, and not start-up burdens. Accordingly, the Commission estimates the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden of the collection of information for each respondent is as follows:
With respect to annual internal costs, the Commission estimates the collection of information will result in 92 burden hours per year on average for each respondent. With respect to external cost burdens, the Commission estimates a range from $0 to $50,000 per adviser.
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of Form PF is mandatory for advisers that satisfy the criteria described in Instruction 1 to the Form. Responses to the collection of information will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law. The Commission does not intend to make public information reported on Form PF that is identifiable to any particular adviser or private fund, although the Commission may use Form PF information in an enforcement action. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this collection at the following website,
On January 3, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange has proposed to amend Section 907.00 of the Manual to provide that companies initially listed on or after April 1, 2018 will not be eligible to receive the corporate governance tools described under the Exchange's current services offering.
As set forth in Section 907.00 of the Manual, the Exchange currently provides Eligible New Listings
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to modify its existing complimentary services offering to no longer offer corporate governance tools to Eligible New Listings that list on or after April 1, 2018. The Exchange states that Eligible New Listings have generally not been interested in utilizing the corporate governance tools offered by the Exchange.
Under the proposal, Eligible New Listings that list prior to April 1, 2018 will remain eligible to receive all the complimentary products and services currently provided by the Exchange, including the corporate governance tools. The Commission notes that Section 6(b)(5) of the Act does not require that all issuers be treated the same; rather, the Act requires that the rules of an exchange not unfairly discriminate between issuers. The Exchange states that it believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer corporate governance tools to companies listed prior to April 1, 2018, as that benefit was part of the services offering that was available at the time of such companies' initial listing and may have had some influence over their listing decisions.
The Commission believes that the Exchange has provided a sufficient basis for its different treatment of Eligible New Listings that list prior to April 1, 2018 and that this portion of the Exchange's proposal meets the requirements of the Act. In making this determination, the Commission notes that the provision of services under Section 907.00 of the Manual is for a limited duration and that the Exchange has provided a reasonable basis for deciding to treat Eligible New Listings that list prior to April 1, 2018 differently from other listed companies going forward. The Commission notes that at the time such companies listed, they had an expectation, if they intended to utilize the corporate governance tools, to be able to do so for the entire 24 month period as set forth in the current rule. To allow such companies listed prior to April 1, 2018 to finish utilizing corporate governance tools for any remainder of their 24 month period appears to be reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Commission notes that the April 1, 2018 date, to curtail the offering of corporate governance tools for Eligible New Listings that list on or after that date, was transparent and published for comment in advance of approval by the Commission in the order discussed herein. As noted above, the Commission received no comments on the proposal. The Commission has also previously approved proposals providing different services to newly-listed issuers, including those transferring their listing from another exchange, and has found this consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and, in particular, that the products and services provided under Section 907.00 of the Manual are equitably allocated among issuers consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, the proposed
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 10, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchange's proposal. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities, to modify the criteria for listing an option on an underlying covered security.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities, to modify the criteria for listing options on an underlying security as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (hereinafter “covered security” or “covered securities”). This is a competitive filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted by Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Nasdaq Phlx”) and approved by the Commission.
In particular, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 402(b)(5)(i) to permit the listing of an option on an underlying covered security that has a market price of at least $3.00 per share for the previous three (3) consecutive business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a certificate to the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for listing and trading. The Exchange does not intend to amend any other criteria for listing options on an underlying security in Rule 402.
Currently the underlying covered security must have a closing market
The Exchange acknowledges that the Options Listing Procedures Plan
The Exchange's initial listing standards for equity options in Rule 402 (including the current price/time standard of $3.00 per share for five (5) consecutive business days) are substantially similar to the initial listing standards adopted by other options exchanges.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the scope of its surveillance program also includes cross market surveillance for trading that is not just limited to the Exchange. In particular, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, operates a range of cross-market equity surveillance patterns on behalf of the Exchange to look for potential manipulative behavior, including spoofing, algorithm gaming, marking the close and open, and momentum ignition strategies, as well as more general, abusive behavior related to front running, wash shales, quoting/routing, and Reg SHO violations. These cross-market patterns incorporate relevant data from various markets beyond the Exchange and its affiliate, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX Options”), including data from the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and from the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”).
Additionally, for options, MIAX PEARL, through FINRA, utilizes an array of patterns that monitor manipulation of options, or manipulation of equity securities (regardless of venue) for the purpose of impacting options prices on both MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL options markets (
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed listing criteria would still require that the underlying security be listed on NYSE, the American Stock Exchange (now known as NYSE American), or the National Market System of The Nasdaq Stock Market (now known as the Nasdaq Global Market) (collectively, the “Named Markets”), as provided for in the definition of “covered security” from Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the 1933 Act.
Furthermore, the Nasdaq, Nasdaq Phlx's affiliated listing market, had no cases within the past five years where an IPO-related issue for which it had pricing information qualified for the $3.00 price requirement during the first three (3) days of trading and did not qualify for the $3.00 price requirement during the first five (5) days.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed look back period can be implemented in connection with the other initial listing criteria for underlying covered securities. In
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it can verify the shareholder count with various brokerage firms that have a large retail customer clientele. Such firms can confirm the number of individual customers who have a position in the new issue. The earliest that these firms can provide confirmation is usually the day after the first day of trading (T+1) on an unsettled basis, while others can confirm on the third day of trading (T+2). The Exchange has confirmed with some of these brokerage firms who provide shareholder numbers to the Exchange that they are T+2 after an IPO. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed three (3) business day look back period on the T+2 settlement cycle would allow for sufficient verification of the number of shareholders.
The proposed rule change will apply to all covered securities that meet the criteria of Rule 402. Pursuant to Rule 402, the Exchange establishes guidelines to be considered in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions.
The Exchange notes that this filing is substantially similar to a companion MIAX Options filing, modifying the criteria for listing an option on an underlying covered security on its exchange.
MIAX PEARL believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its listing standards for covered securities would allow the Exchange to more quickly list options on a qualifying covered security that has met the $3.00 eligibility price without sacrificing investor protection. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing trading surveillances provide a sufficient measure of protection against potential price manipulation within the proposed three (3) consecutive business day timeframe. The Exchange also believes that the proposed three (3) consecutive business day timeframe would continue to be a reliable test for price stability in light of Nasdaq's findings that none of the IPO-related issues on Nasdaq within the past five years that qualified for the $3.00 per share price standard during the first three trading days fell below the $3.00 threshold during the fourth or fifth trading day. Furthermore, the established guidelines to be considered by the Exchange in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions,
In addition, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed timeframe on the T+2 settlement cycle adequately addresses the potential difficulties in confirming the number of shareholders of the underlying covered security. Having some of the largest brokerage firms that provide these shareholder counts to the Exchange confirm that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 further demonstrates that the 2,000 shareholder requirement can be sufficiently verified within the proposed timeframe. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will remove and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing an avenue for investors to swiftly hedge their investment in the stock in a shorter amount of time than what is currently in place.
Finally, it should be noted that a price/time standard for the underlying security was first adopted when the listed options market was in its infancy, and was intended to prevent the proliferation of options being listed on low-priced securities that presented special manipulation concerns and/or lacked liquidity needed to maintain fair and orderly markets.
Now more than 40 years later, the listed options market has evolved into a mature market with sophisticated investors. In view of this evolution, the Commission has approved various exchange proposals to relax some of these initial listing standards throughout the years,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by Nasdaq Phlx that was recently approved by the Commission.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 21, 2017, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Funds under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares. In total, the Exchange is proposing to list and trade Shares of twelve monthly series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy ETF. Each Fund will be an index-based exchange traded fund (“ETF”). The Funds will include the following: Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (January) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (February) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (March) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (April) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (May) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (June) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (July) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (August) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (September) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (October) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (November) ETF; and Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (December) ETF. Each Fund will be based on the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index (Month) Series, where “Month” is the corresponding month associated with the roll date of the applicable Fund (individually, “Index,” and, collectively, “Indexes”).
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on February 9, 2012. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Funds on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
Each Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective Index. The value of each Index is calculated daily by Cboe Options utilizing an option valuation model. The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Indexes for the Funds do not meet the listing requirements of BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3) applicable to an index that consists of equity securities. Specifically, the Indexes for the Funds do not meet the listing requirements of BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3) because the Indexes consist of options based on an index of U.S. Component Stocks.
Each Index is a rules-based options index that consists exclusively of FLexible EXchange Options on the S&P 500 Index (“FLEX Options”) listed on Cboe Options.
Each Index is designed to provide the following outcomes between Roll Dates:
•
•
•
•
Under Normal Market Conditions,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the proposal, each Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective Index, each of which consists of a hypothetical portfolio of purchased and written (sold) put and call FLEX Options structured to participate in market gains and losses of the S&P 500 Index within pre-determined ranges that are only applicable for a full 12-month period from one Roll Date to the next Roll Date. Specifically, on each Roll Date, the applicable Index implements a portfolio of put and call FLEX Options with expirations on the next Roll Date that,
Interested persons are invited to submit written views, data, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by April 4, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 18, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 31, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On March 7, 2018, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2017-69), as modified by Amendment No. 2.
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 introduce its Acceptable Trade Range protection for orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange offers an Acceptable Trade Range (“ATR”) protection that prevents the execution of quotes and orders on the regular order book outside of set thresholds. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance this ATR protection for orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan (“Linkage Plan”) instead of being executed immediately on the Exchange or resting on the regular order book.
As codified in Rule 714(b)(1), the Exchange's trading system calculates an Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order or quote will be allowed to execute.
Currently, the trading system calculates an appropriate reference price for an incoming order or quote when that order or quote rests or trades on the regular order book but not when orders are routed to an away market pursuant to the Linkage Plan without first trading on the Exchange. The Exchange now proposes to enhance its ATR protection by applying it to orders that are routed to away markets without first trading on the Exchange. As proposed, Rule 714(a)(1) will continue to provide that the reference price for the ATR protection is the NBB for sell orders/quotes and the NBO for buy orders/quotes. For clarity, however, the Exchange proposes to move this language to a separate bullet under proposed Rule 714(a)(1)(ii). In addition, proposed Rule 714(a)(1)(ii) will indicate that the reference price is calculated upon receipt of a new order or quote, provided that if the applicable NBB or NBO price is improved at the time an order is routed to an away market, a new reference price is calculated based on the NBB or NBO at that time.
Although the Exchange will continue to use the NBB or NBO as the reference price for the ATR protection, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to update the reference price if the applicable NBB or NBO price is improved at the time an order is routed to an away market. Orders that are routed to away markets are eligible for the “Flash” auction process described in Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901. When a Flash auction is initiated, members are given an opportunity to enter responses to trade with the order for a time period established by the Exchange not to exceed one (1) second.
The Exchange proposes to launch the ATR functionality described in this proposed rule change no later than October 31, 2018. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of this functionality in an Options Trader Alert issued to members prior to the launch date.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by enhancing the Exchange's ATR protection. The ATR functionality is designed to ensure that orders and quotes entered on the Exchange are executed at reasonable prices based on the applicable NBBO price on receipt. Currently, the Exchange's ATR protection calculates a reference price at the time an order or quote rests or trades locally but not when an order is routed to an away market pursuant to the Linkage Plan without first trading on the Exchange. To further protect orders that are subject to routing that have not traded on the Exchange, the Exchange is proposing to implement the ATR protection for those orders. The Exchange will continue to use the NBBO as the reference price for the ATR protection but now that the Exchange is protecting orders that are routed away pursuant to the Linkage Plan without trading on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to use the NBBO price on routing instead of the NBBO on receipt only in those circumstances where the NBBO is improved at the time of routing. As described earlier in this proposed rule change, the Exchange operates a Flash auction that provides an opportunity for Members to match or improve the NBBO price prior to routing eligible orders to away markets. Since the NBBO price may change during the Flash auction's exposure period, the Exchange believes that the ATR protection should take improved NBBO prices into account when determining whether a particular price is a reasonable execution price. The Exchange believes, however, that a worsened NBBO price should not be considered as this would decrease rather than increase the protection provided to such an order. In sum, the proposed changes to the ATR protection will protect investors and the public interest by providing additional protections designed to ensure that quotes and orders entered on the Exchange are executed at reasonable prices, and thereby perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to enhance the Exchange's ATR protection by extending that protection to orders that are routed to away markets that did not first trade on the Exchange. The proposed protection will apply equally to all orders that are routed to away markets pursuant to the Linkage Plan. The Exchange believes that this change is the result of a competitive market where exchanges must continually improve the functionality offered to market participants in order to remain competitive.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities, to modify the criteria for listing an option on an underlying covered security.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities, to modify the criteria for listing options on an underlying security as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (hereinafter “covered security” or “covered securities”). This is a competitive filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted by Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Nasdaq Phlx”) and approved by the Commission.
In particular, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 402(b)(5)(i) to permit the listing of an option on an underlying covered security that has a market price of at least $3.00 per share for the previous three (3) consecutive business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a certificate to the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for listing and trading. The Exchange does not intend to amend any other criteria for listing options on an underlying security in Rule 402.
Currently the underlying covered security must have a closing market price of $3.00 per share for the previous five (5) consecutive business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a listing certificate to OCC. In the proposed amendment, the market price will still be measured by the closing price reported in the primary market in which the underlying covered security is traded, but the measurement will be the price over the prior three (3) consecutive business day period preceding the submission of the listing certificate to OCC, instead of the prior five (5) business day period.
The Exchange acknowledges that the Options Listing Procedures Plan
The Exchange's initial listing standards for equity options in Rule 402 (including the current price/time standard of $3.00 per share for five (5) consecutive business days) are substantially similar to the initial listing standards adopted by other options exchanges.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the scope of its surveillance program also includes cross market surveillance for trading that is not just limited to the Exchange. In particular, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, operates a range of cross-market equity surveillance patterns on behalf of the Exchange to look for potential manipulative behavior, including spoofing, algorithm gaming, marking the close and open, and momentum ignition strategies, as well as more general, abusive behavior related to front running, wash shales, quoting/routing, and Reg SHO violations. These cross-market patterns incorporate relevant data from various markets beyond the Exchange and its affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL”), including data from the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and from the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”).
Additionally, for options, MIAX Options, through FINRA, utilizes an array of patterns that monitor manipulation of options, or manipulation of equity securities (regardless of venue) for the purpose of impacting options prices on both MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL options markets (
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed listing criteria would still require that the underlying security be listed on NYSE, the American Stock Exchange (now known as NYSE American), or the National Market System of The Nasdaq Stock Market (now known as the Nasdaq Global Market) (collectively, the “Named Markets”), as provided for in the definition of “covered security” from Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the 1933 Act.
Furthermore, the Nasdaq, Nasdaq Phlx's affiliated listing market, had no cases within the past five years where an IPO-related issue for which it had pricing information qualified for the $3.00 price requirement during the first three (3) days of trading and did not qualify for the $3.00 price requirement during the first five (5) days.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed look back period can be implemented in connection with the other initial listing criteria for underlying covered securities. In particular, the Exchange recognizes that it may be difficult to verify the number of shareholders in the days immediately following an IPO due to the fact that stock trades generally clear within two business days (T+2) of their trade date and therefore the shareholder count will generally not be known until T+2.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it can verify the shareholder count with various brokerage firms that have a large retail customer clientele. Such firms can confirm the number of individual customers who have a position in the new issue. The earliest that these firms can provide confirmation is usually the day after the first day of trading (T+1) on an unsettled basis, while others can confirm on the third day of trading (T+2). The Exchange has confirmed with some of these brokerage firms who provide shareholder numbers to the Exchange that they are T+2 after an IPO. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed three (3) business day look back period on the T+2 settlement cycle would allow for sufficient verification of the number of shareholders.
The proposed rule change will apply to all covered securities that meet the criteria of Rule 402. Pursuant to Rule 402, the Exchange establishes guidelines to be considered in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its listing standards for covered securities would allow the Exchange to more quickly list options on a qualifying covered security that has met the $3.00 eligibility price without sacrificing investor protection. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing trading surveillances provide a sufficient measure of protection against potential price manipulation within the proposed three (3) consecutive business day timeframe. The Exchange also believes that the proposed three (3) consecutive business day timeframe would continue to be a reliable test for price stability in light of Nasdaq's findings that none of the IPO-related issues on Nasdaq within the past five years that qualified for the $3.00 per share price standard during the first three trading days fell below the $3.00 threshold during the fourth or fifth trading day. Furthermore, the established guidelines to be considered by the Exchange in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions,
In addition, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed timeframe on the T+2 settlement cycle adequately addresses the potential difficulties in confirming the number of shareholders of the underlying covered security. Having some of the largest brokerage firms that provide these shareholder counts to the Exchange confirm that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 further demonstrates that the 2,000 shareholder requirement can be sufficiently verified within the proposed timeframe. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will remove and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing an avenue for investors to swiftly hedge their investment in the stock in a shorter amount of time than what is currently in place.
Finally, it should be noted that a price/time standard for the underlying security was first adopted when the listed options market was in its infancy, and was intended to prevent the proliferation of options being listed on low-priced securities that presented special manipulation concerns and/or lacked liquidity needed to maintain fair and orderly markets.
Now more than 40 years later, the listed options market has evolved into a mature market with sophisticated investors. In view of this evolution, the Commission has approved various exchange proposals to relax some of these initial listing standards throughout the years,
MIAX 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. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by Nasdaq Phlx that was recently approved by the Commission.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7600(c) to state that the Qualified Open Outcry (“QOO”) Order is subject to the trade-through exceptions outlined in Rule 15010(b). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 rule change is to amend Rule 7600(c) to state that the Qualified Open Outcry (“QOO”) Order is subject to the trade-through exceptions in Rule 15010(b).
Currently, BOX Participants must comply with Exchange rules and the terms of the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (“Linkage Plan”) by honoring any better-priced Protected Quotes.
The Exchange notes that it recently adopted rules for an open outcry Trading Floor.
Specifically, pursuant to Rule 15010(b)(4), a QOO Order with an ISO designation will be submitted to the Trading Host in the same manner as any other QOO Order.
Upon identifying the QOO Order as an ISO, the system will execute the order, regardless of the NBBO.
For example, assume the following at the time the QOO Order is submitted to the BOX trading host:
A QOO Order with an ISO designation is submitted to the Trading Host to sell 100 at .96. The QOO Order will execute regardless of the NBBO. Contemporaneously, the Floor Broker must take out all better-priced Protected Bids. The Floor Broker would send the following orders to each exchange displaying a better-priced Protected Quote, for the full size of the Protected Quote, contemporaneous with the execution of the QOO Order on BOX:
The Exchange notes that other options exchanges with open outcry trading floors have made this distinction in the past in their respective Regulatory Circulars.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that stating that both sides of the QOO Order must execute at a price equal to or better than the NBBO subject to the exceptions in Rule 15010(b) is reasonable because it will provide Participants with more clarity and transparency with regard to the Trading Floor rules; specifically, rules surrounding QOO Orders on the Trading Floor and their relationship with the Linkage Plan. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is appropriate as other exchanges have made this clarification in their respective circulars.
As discussed above, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is simply amending Rule 7600(c) to state
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to delist the shares of the iShares Edge U.S. Fixed Income Balanced Risk ETF (the “Fund”) from listing pursuant to Rule 14.11(i) and approval orders issued by the Commission as a series of Managed Fund Shares, and to re-list pursuant to Rule 14.11(c)(4) as a series of Index Fund Shares.
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 delist the shares of the Fund (the “Shares”) from listing pursuant to an approval order issued by the Commission under Rule 14.11(i) related to Managed Fund Shares and re-listing pursuant to Rule 14.11(c)(4) related to Index Fund Shares
The Shares began trading on the Exchange on February 26, 2015 after the Commission issued an order
The Index uses a rules-based approach to calculate an equal volatility-weighted allocation to each of five segments of the Parent Index: (1) Investment-grade corporate bonds 1-5 year; (2) investment-grade corporate bonds 5-10 year; (3) high yield corporate bonds rated BB or higher; (4) high yield corporate bonds rated below BB; and (5) U.S. agency mortgage-backed securities. Segments with lower credit spread volatility receive a higher weighting, and segments with higher credit spread volatility receive a lower weighting, with the result that the contribution of each segment to overall credit spread volatility is approximately equal. The Index adjusts interest rate risk so that it equals credit spread risk by adding either long positions in U.S. Treasury bonds or short positions in U.S. Treasury futures.
The Index meets all of the generic listing standards of Rule 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i) except that the Index includes exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts. The Index also meets all of the generic listing standards applicable to Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i), including the exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts. The Index also meets the Continued Listing Representations from the Order related to portfolio holdings. As noted above, the Exchange is submitting this proposal because the Index contains futures contracts (U.S. Treasury futures contracts) in a manner permitted pursuant to the Order, but for which Rule 14.11(c) does not currently contemplate. All U.S. Treasury futures contracts held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposal is non-controversial and should be effective upon filing. Specifically, because: (i) The Index meets the generic listing standards applicable to Index Fund Shares except the portion of the Index that includes exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts, which are not contemplated as Index constituents under Rule 14.11(c); (ii) the Index would meet the generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C), including the exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts under
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Index meets all of the generic listing standards of Rule 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i) except that the Index includes exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts. The Index also meets all of the generic listing standards applicable to Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i), including the exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts. The Index also meets the Continued Listing Representations from the Order related to portfolio holdings. As noted above, the Exchange is submitting this proposal because the Index contains futures contracts (U.S. Treasury futures contracts) in a manner permitted pursuant to the Order, but for which Rule 14.11(c) does not currently contemplate. All U.S. Treasury futures contracts held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposal is non-controversial and should be effective upon filing. Specifically, because: (i) The Index meets the generic listing standards applicable to Index Fund Shares except the portion of the Index that includes exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts, which are not contemplated as Index constituents under Rule 14.11(c); (ii) the Index would meet the generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C), including the exposure to U.S. Treasury futures contracts under Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv);
As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because there are no substantive issues raised by this proposal that were not otherwise addressed by the Order.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow the Fund to be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the generic listing standards under Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) will have no impact on competition.
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.
Notice is hereby given that Caltius Partners V (SBIC), L.P., 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850, Los Angeles, CA 90025, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Caltius Partners V (SBIC), L.P. proposes to provide senior subordinated loan financing to Emerging Acquisitions, LLC d/b/a Bulk Handling Systems, 3592 West 5th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97402 (“BHS”).
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) and (d) of the Regulations because Caltius Equity Partners III, L.P. an Associate of Caltius Partners V (SBIC), L.P., owns more than ten percent of BHS, and therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0030. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CHASING SUMMER is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0030 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0034. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel OTIUM is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0034 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0032. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ARROW is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0032 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0035. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TERN is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0035 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0033. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PULPO is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0033 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation and certain other specified Toyota manufacturing entities (collectively referred to as “Toyota”), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Lexus RX350 and Lexus RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a,
Ed Chan, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 493-0335, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
I.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April 7, 2017, in the
II.
III.
IV.
• The head restraint must not be removable without a deliberate action distinct from any act necessary for upward adjustment.
V.
In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the following reasoning:
1. The rear outboard head restraints continue to meet the underlying purpose of S4.5 of the standard:
a.
Toyota further explained that when NHTSA issued the FMVSS No. 202 Final Rule in 2004,
b.
Toyota stated that there are three factors, when considered together, that make this noncompliance inconsequential to motor vehicles safety:
i. With the subject head restraints, the necessity to press the release button to move from the first notch to the second, in addition to the need to press it to release the restraint from the second notch to remove it, lessens the ease of removal, thereby reducing the likelihood of inadvertent removal and increasing the chances that the occupant will receive the benefits of a properly positioned head restraint.
ii. The subject vehicle model can be generally described as a mid-sized sports-utility vehicle (SUV). The roofline tends to slope downward toward the rear of the vehicle, and the distance between the top of the head restraint and the headliner is less than in other mid-sized SUV's with a less sloped roofline. The rear seat can be manually adjusted forward and rearward on the seat track for a distance of 120mm from the front position to the rear position. The nominal design seat back position is approximately 27 degrees rearward to the vertical line, and the seat back can be reclined an additional 10 degrees. The seat back folds forward from the nominal design position. (See figure 6 of Toyota's petition).
Given the rear seat design, there are a variety of combinations of seat track and seat back positions that can be attained. Typically, the seat would most likely be placed in the mid-track position or rearward for occupant comfort and convenience. From the mid-track position (60mm) rearward there are 30 combinations of seat track/seat back angle combinations for the manually reclining seat back.
Together with the need to press the release button to move the head restraint when in either the first or second notches, such further deliberate actions in many seat adjustment positions of either compressing the restraint material, adjusting the seat slide position, or adjusting the seat back angle lessen the ease with which the restraint can be removed, reduce the chance of accidental removal, and increase the chances that the occupant will receive the benefits of a properly positioned head restraint.
iii. Finally, in addition to the two previously noted factors, it is unlikely that the head restraint will be inadvertently removed as there is 97.7mm of travel distance from the second notch until the head restraint is fully removed from the seat; this length is much greater than the travel distance between the fully stowed position and second notch (37.5mm). The difference is easily recognized by anyone attempting to adjust the head restraint. (See figure 8 of Toyota's petition) Therefore, the overall design and operation of the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles fulfill the purpose and policy behind the S4.5 requirement.
2. The Design and performance of the rear seat head restraints provide safety benefits to a broad range of occupants and pose no risk of exacerbating whiplash injuries, making the noncompliance inconsequential:
a. Toyota stated that NHTSA elected not to mandate rear seat head restraints in vehicles; however, certain requirements for voluntarily installed rear head restraints were adopted. Toyota stated that the requirements for rear outboard head restraints are common in some respects with those of front seat restraints, but that the rear seat environment and usage resulted in several differences. Toyota stated that NHTSA analyzed the usage of rear seats and studied the various types of occupants who typically occupy rear seating positions. Toyota stated that NHTSA found that 10 percent of all occupants sit in rear outboard seats, and that only 5.1 percent of those are people who are 13 years or older. Toyota stated that this justified a difference in the minimum height requirement for front and rear head restraints. The standard requires front integral head restraints to have a height of at least 800mm above the H-point
Toyota stated that the rear outboard restraints in the subject vehicles meet or surpass all the requirements in the completely stowed position and in the first notch position. Toyota stated that there is nothing about the performance of these restraints that poses a risk of exacerbating whiplash injuries and that the noncompliance does not create such a risk.
b. Rear head restraint height well surpasses the requirements of the standard: Toyota stated that when NHTSA established height requirements for mandatory front head restraints, an adjustment range was adopted that was estimated to ensure that the top of the head restraint exceeded the head center of gravity for an estimated 93 percent of all adults. Toyota stated that research conducted since the implementation of the previous height requirements has shown that head restraints should be at least as high as the center of gravity of the occupant's head to adequately control motion of the head and neck relative to the torso.
Toyota stated that the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles not only surpass the 750mm requirement for voluntarily installed rear seat restraints, but also can be adjusted to surpass the 800mm requirement applicable to mandatory front seat head restraints. In the fully stowed position, the rear outboard head restraints measure 780mm above the H-point. In the first notch position they are 797mm above the H-point, and in the second notch position they are 816mm above the H-point. (See figure 9 of Toyota's petition)
Toyota stated that it evaluated the height of the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles against the center of gravity of various size occupants. In the first notch position, which can be attained by simply pulling upward on the head restraint in a manner compliant with S4.5, the center of gravity of the head of an occupant the size of a 95th percentile adult male (AM95) is below the top of the head restraint.
c. Toyota stated that the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles meet and surpass all other performance requirements of the standard not only in the fully stowed position, but also in both the first and second notch positions. These include energy absorption (S4.2.5 and S5.2.5), backset retention (S4.2.7 and S5.2.7), and height retention (S4.2.6 and S5.2.6). Toyota summarized the performance in tables that can be found in its petition. It contended that there is nothing about the performance of the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles that in relation to the additional criteria set forth in these tables that poses a risk of exacerbating whiplash injuries.
3. The occupancy rates and usage of the Lexus RX model further supports the conclusion that the noncompliance with S4.5 is inconsequential to safety: The rear seat vehicle environment has unique aspects in terms of occupancy rates and usage. This is why the agency decided to specify different requirements for front and rear seat head restraints. As noted above, the agency found that, in the general vehicle population studied for the purpose of adopting FMVSS 202a requirements, the occupancy rate for the rear outboard seating positions was about 10 percent.
Based on the analysis, the occupancy rate for rear outboard seat occupants in all types of crashes for the RX models analyzed was 10 percent—meaning that 10 percent of the RX vehicles involved in crashes have a rear outboard passenger. This is the same as what NHTSA found to be the occupancy rate in the general vehicle population when it undertook the FMVSS 202a rulemaking. In a smaller subset of only rear crashes, the occupancy rate in the RX models is slightly higher, but still small—only 13 percent.
The data analyzed were insufficient to provide an understanding of the size of the occupants who ride in the rear outboard positions in the subject vehicles. However, considering that the occupancy rate is consistent with NHTSA's previous analyses, there is no reason to believe that occupant sizes would be significantly different from the general vehicle population. In the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, the agency found that, of the small percentage of occupants that ride in the rear of vehicles generally, 83 percent of all rear outboard occupants were 5'9” or less and 17 percent were 5'10” and above. The latter is the height of the average U.S. male. As outlined in Section II, above, the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles are designed so that the center of gravity of the head of the small percentage of large occupants who may occasionally ride in the rear seats of the subject vehicles is below the top of the head restraint. Therefore, the number of occupants who may actually seek to adjust the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles is insignificant, further justifying a finding that the paragraph S4.5 noncompliance is inconsequential to vehicle safety.
Toyota stated that it is unaware of any consumer complaints, field reports, accidents, or injuries that have occurred as a result of this noncompliance as of December 15, 2016.
Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA has reviewed the petition and the anonymous comment and has made its decision to grant the petition based on the reasons described below.
“If head restraints were too easily removable, chances are greater that they will be removed. That, in turn, increases the chances that the restraints might not be reinstalled correctly, if at all. By prohibiting removability without the use of deliberate action distinct from any act necessary for adjustment, the likelihood of inadvertent head restraint removal will be reduced, thus increasing the chances that vehicle occupants will receive the benefits of properly positioned head restraints.”
We believe the rationale and justification for this provision remains sound. NHTSA's decision in this matter, in no way changes the agency's position about the general need for the removability requirements specified in S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a.
We find merit in the argument presented by Toyota that when the head restraint is in the stowed (full down), first notch, and second notch position, the head restraint “meet[s] and surpass all other performance requirements of the standard . . . .” Thus, when the head restraint is not removed, all benefits of the standard have been preserved.
Toyota provided information indicating that when the rear seat is adjusted to a mid-track position, most seat adjustment positions (25 of 30) are such that there would be interference during head restraint removal necessitating compression of the head restraint foam or readjustment of the seat back to complete the removal. However, Toyota did not provide similar data for more forward seat track positions. Based on the data presented, it seems likely that the interference during removal would be lessened or eliminated in these more forward positions. Nonetheless, NHTSA finds some merit in the argument that this mitigates to some degree the possibility of inadvertent head restraint removal, when the seat is at mid-track or more rearward.
We do not agree with Toyota's contention that “the overall design and operation of the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles fulfills the purpose and policy behind the S4.5 requirement.” However, we find merit in the argument that the required 97mm of travel beyond the second adjustment position to remove the head restraint may mitigate potential unintended removal. This distance is greater than the travel from the fully stowed to the second adjustment position (37mm), and this additional distance (without a detent) may indicate to the operator that the head restraint is being removed rather than being adjusted to a higher position.
Finally, although not required by FMVSS No. 202a, NHTSA notes that the head restraints, if removed, can be reinstalled by the operator without the assistance of a mechanic and without any tools.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of modified of System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records entitled, “Veterans Health Administration Leadership and Workforce Development-VA” (161VA10A2) as set forth in a notice, published in the
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than April 13, 2018. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Chris Jaqua, Veterans Health Administration Human Capital Systems and Services (HCSS) Program Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 55 North Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102; telephone (405) 552-4345.
The System Name is being changed from “Veterans Health Administration Leadership and Workforce Development-VA” to “Veterans Health Administration Human Capital Management”.
The System Manager has been amended to replace “Diana Rogers, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration High Performance Development Model (HPDM) Program Office, 55 North Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102; telephone (405) 552-4336” with Officials maintaining the system:
Manager of the Human Capital Systems and Services (HCSS), 55 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 1010, Oklahoma City, OK 73102.
Director of Events Division, Employee Education System, #1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125.
Deputy Director of Events Division, Employee Education System, #1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125.
Associate Director of Web Architecture, Employee Education System, 2200 Fort Roots Drive, Building 11, North Little Rock, AR 72114.
The Purpose of the System is being amended to include leadership and organization development and Records will support pairing of learning and professional growth services by internal coaches and consultants to VA employees and leaders.
The Categories of Records in the System is being amended to include: The Talent Assessment Data 1. • Work Setting status • Service Type • Clinical position type • Coaching preference • Performance standards • Resume;4. Veterans Benefits Administration;9. Coach- Coach status • Education • Biographical information • Availability • Years;10. Identification of boss; 11. Program Management • Inquiry Status • Inquiry date • Enrollment status • Enrollment date • Pairing status • Open/closed status • Referral source • Close reason • Survey status • Service start and end dates • Target group • Group location • Organizational chart • Service requested • Organizational opportunities/challenges • Complaints • Barriers to work • Signed agreement; 12. Service contact information • Contact dates • Contact time • Contact type • Contact notes; 13. Development Assessments Assessment type • Results and summaries; 14. Employee Requesting Information • Leadership interests and experiences • Number of direct reports • Current role descriptors • Self-described characteristics • Readiness for change • Current and future role preferences • Aspirations; 15. Credentialing Audio Recordings and Transcripts • Audio file.
The Record Source Categories is being amended to replace 89VA16 with 89VA10NB. Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is being included.
The Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System has been amended by adding language to Routine Use #7 which states, “
Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System has been amended by adding Routine Use #8 which states “VA may disclosure any audio files and accompanying transcripts to coaching credentialing entities for the sole purpose of evaluation of a coach who is applying for an advanced coaching credential.”
The following Routine Uses are being added:
Routine use #9, “VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.” VA needs this routine use for the data breach response and remedial efforts with another Federal agency.
Routine use #10, “VA may disclose information from this system to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.” VA must be able to provide information to EEOC to assist it in fulfilling its duties to protect employees' rights, as required by statute and regulation.
Routine use #11, “VA may disclose information from this system to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), including its General Counsel, information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, investigation, and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; for it to address matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, investigate representation petitions, and conduct or supervise representation elections.” VA must be able to provide information to FLRA to comply with the statutory mandate under which it operates.
Routine use #12, “VA may disclose information from this system to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as authorized by law.” VA must be able to provide information to MSPB to assist it in fulfilling its duties as required by statute and regulation.
The Policies and Practices for Storage of Records is being amended to include the VACIN Server in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Policies and Practices for Retrievability of Records has been amended to include organization number and position number or other assigned identifiers of the organizations, positions or individuals on whom records are maintained.
Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal is being amended to replace paper records and information maintained and disposed of in accordance with records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States with the records are disposed of in accordance with General records 4.3, item 031.
The Physical, Procedural, and Administrative Safeguards is being amended to remove:
1. Access to Veterans Affairs working and storage areas is restricted to Veterans Affairs employees on a “need-to-know” basis; strict control measures are enforced to ensure that disclosure to these individuals is also based on this same principle. Generally, Veterans Affairs file areas are locked after normal duty hours and the facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
2. Access to computer rooms at health care facilities is generally limited by appropriate locking devices and restricted to authorized Veterans Affairs employees and vendor personnel. Automatic Data Processing peripheral devices are placed in secure areas.
Access to information stored on automated storage media at other Veterans Affairs locations is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes. Employees are limited to only that information in the file which is needed in the performance of their official duties.
3. Access to the Little Rock Campus Servers is restricted to Center employees, Federal Protective Service and other security personnel. Access to computer rooms is restricted to authorized operational personnel through electronic scanning and locking devices. All other persons gaining access to computer rooms are escorted after identity verification and log entry to track person, date, time in, and time out of the room. Information stored in the computer may be accessed by authorized Veterans Affairs employees at remote locations including Veterans Affairs health care facilities, Information Systems Centers, Veterans Affairs Central Office, and Veteran Integrated Service Networks. Access is controlled by secure individually unique system authentication.
The Physical, Procedural, and Administrative Safeguards section will be replaced with the following language:
1. Access to and use of national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access, and VA has established security procedures to ensure that access is appropriately limited. Information security officers and system data stewards review and authorize data access requests. VA regulates data access with security software that authenticates users and requires individually-unique codes and passwords. VA requires information security training for all staff and instructs staff on the responsibility each person has for safeguarding data confidentiality.
2. Physical access to computer rooms housing national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts is restricted to authorized staff and protected by a variety of security devices. Unauthorized employees, contractors, and other staff are not allowed in computer rooms.
3. Data transmissions between operational systems and national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts maintained by this system of record are protected by state-of-the-art telecommunication software and hardware. This may include firewalls, intrusion detection devices, encryption, and other security measures necessary to safeguard data as it travels across the Wide Area Network.
The Record Access Procedure is amended to include the Program Office in which requests for services were made.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. John Oswalt, Executive Director for Privacy, Department of Veterans Affairs approved this document on February 2, 2018 for publication.
Veterans Health Administration Human Capital Management-VA (61VA10A2)
None.
Records are maintained at the North Little Rock Campus, 2200 Fort Roots Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72114.
Officials maintaining the system:
Manager of the Human Capital Systems and Services (HCSS), 55 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 1010, Oklahoma City, OK 73102.
Director of Events Division, Employee Education System, #1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125.
Deputy Director of Events Division, Employee Education System, #1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125.
Associate Director of Web Architecture, Employee Education System, 2200 Fort Roots Drive, Building 11, North Little Rock, AR 72114.
Title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 501a.
The records and information may be used for the management of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) executive and senior executive employees and employees in national programs for performance appraisal and bonus award entries, bonus and appraisal documentation storage, rank award and type given, supervisory training status, leadership and organization development, and employee position management. Records will support pairing of learning and professional growth services by internal coaches and consultants to VA employees and leaders. Reports for workforce succession planning and analysis, VHA supervisory training status and course grade, bonus award dollar amounts per executive and non-executive employee used by Performance Review Boards. Human resource position creation, and fill actions, employee action and assignment tracking data is collected for business processing and analysis.
Workgroups are developed for survey use and data collection. Data that is entered and stored can be extracted from the database and used for other applications.
The records include information from and concerning Veterans Affairs Central Office, VHA, VHA Canteen, VHA Central Office, VBA, and National Cemetery Administration (NCA) personnel.
The records may include information related to: People, work groups, workforce, funding, leadership classes, personal development plans, supervisory levels, mentor and coach roles and certifications, High Performance Development Model, senior executive information and recruitment, human resources automation, positions, organizations, the Talent Assessment Data and locations of VHA top management positions. Central Office and Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) managers and staff, facility directors, associate directors, chiefs of staff, and other senior clinical and administrative field managers' positions are included. The VHA Executive Management Program consists of the functions that fall under the purview of the VHA Executive Resources Board and the VHA Performance Review Board. Their functions include executive development, recruitment and placement; organizational analysis; succession planning; and performance assessment and recognition. The method used to collect this information is a proprietary system using relational technology. Information from this database is joined and expanded with information from the VHA executive program processes (
1. Employee data.
• Employee legal name
• Social Security number
• Veteran's preference
• Vietnam Era veteran
• Retirement plan
• Tenure
• Universal personal identification number
• Universal user name
• Sex
• Supervisory status
• Supervisory training status
• Work contact information
• Facility
• Network Identification
• Home contact information
• Home of record contact information
• Assigned facility/organization
• Pay plan
• Pay grade
• Step
• Retirement eligibility
• Union membership
• Leave balances
• Program
• Credentials
• Grievance
• Disciplinary actions
• Third-party and other employee actions
• Work Setting status
• Service Type
• Clinical position type
• Coaching preference
• Performance standards
• Resume
2. Employee position data.
• VHA Leadership and Workforce Development position titles
• High Performance Development Management ratings
• Position requestor contact data
• Legal authority
• Competitive Level
• Fair Labor Standards Act category
• Drug testing position indicator
• Citizenship/Residency status
• English language proficiency
• Announcement status
• Vacancy status
• Date job opened
• Days to open
• Days to issue certificate
• Date job closed
• Job type/Occupation series/Grade
• Pay plan
• Work schedule
• Appropriation code
• Cost center
• Date candidates referred
• Date nomination received
• Date to Executive Resources Board
• Date credentials complete
• Date recruitment received
• Position start and end dates
• Appointment start and end dates
• Position location
○ Location complexity rating
• Position reporting official
• Position status
○ Supervisory
○ Bargaining unit
○ Senior executive pay band
• Level of supervisory responsibility
• Date of offer
• Position status change
• Reason for change
• Position authorization data
• Announcement tracking data (location and dates of actions)
• Area of consideration
• Number of applicants (internal, external, not qualified)
• Number interviewed
• Applicant outcome and notification
• Selecting official
• Re-announcement
• Position cancelations
• Date fingerprinted
• Background check data
• Physician Comp Panel and Standards
• Board data
3. Bonus data.
• Executive/Senior Executive Service
○ Pay band and band max pay
○ Proposed pay adjustment
○ Proposed rating
○ Approved rating
○ Approved bonus pay
○ Actual pay
○ Rank award
• Type
• Previous year nomination and award amount
• Current year nomination
○ Bonus pool total
○ Local bonus funding amount
○ Form Uploads
• Appraisal
• High level reviews
• Comments
• Bonus justification
• Rank award nominations
• Non-Executive (each Fiscal Year)
○ Rating
○ Award amount
○ Pay adjustment (Yes/No)
4. Workgroups and Organizations.
• Just under 100 codes—not job occupation series codes—code developed for the All Employee Survey
○ Agency selection
○ Veterans Affairs
○ VHA
○ VBA
○ NCA
• Agency networks
• Agency organizations
• Formal and informal name
• Organization type
• Network
• Physical location
• Duty Code
• Complexity Level
• Station number
• Workgroup supervisory designations
• Workgroup coordinator assignment
• Workgroup coordinator contact info
5. Development Plans.
• Uploaded text document
○ Document filled from template
○ Free text employee documentation
6. Funding.
• Program funding
• Program funds available
• Reimbursement type
• Appropriation code
• Fiscal contact name and phone
• Amount per employee
• Fund control point
• Requested average salary
• Approved funds
• Withdrawn funds
• Date funding sent
• Approval funding comments
• Approved Full Time Equivalents dollars
• Cost center
7. Career Programs.
• Program Eligibility criteria
• Program waiver
• Program employee applied
• Class title
• Program/Class year
• School name and state
• Major
• Anticipated graduation date
• Application status
• Employment history
• Education history
• Competency data (application questions and answers)
• Applicant endorsers
• Class administrator assignments
• Employee list per class
• Program completion status
• Requested number of student hires
• Requested funding for student salary
• Student work schedule
• Number Full Time Equivalents requested
8. Workforce Planning—Annual Corporate Office and VISNs.
• Planning team members
• Strategic direction
• Historical analysis
○ Employee reason to leave
○ Equal employment opportunity category of employee
• Projected workforce-rational and issues
• Recruitment and Retention programs used
• Leadership programs/activities and participation
• Workplace morale assessment
• Work plan comments
9. Mentor and Coach Information.
• Mentor status
• Coach status
• Core training
○ Courses
○ Date and location
○ Training instructors
○ Training history
• Certification level
• Education
• Biographical information
• Availability
• Practical experience years, hours and event
10. Perseus Survey Software.
• Employee legal name
• Last 4 social security number
• VISNs
• Facility/Office
• Work Setting (Section/Division/Campus/Product Line/Service/Department)
• Occupation
• Identification of supervisory chain of command
• Identification of boss
• Identification of peer and subordinate relationships
• Demographic information
○ Gender
○ Age
○ Race/National Origin
○ Tenure
○ Grade Level
• Data Input in Response to survey questions (questionnaires which cover the following types of topics as an example)
○ Assessment Inventories, such as 360 Assessments, WES/MBI Instruments
○ Customer Satisfaction surveys/evaluations (High Performance Development Model, Health Care Retention and Recruitment Office, National Center for Organizational Development, Delegated Examining Units, Workforce Management and Consulting Office)
○ Organizational assessment instruments such as Civility, Respect
○ Program Assessments/Proficiency surveys such as Technical Career Field Return on Investment survey, Supervisory Training Pre/Post Test surveys, Human Resource Proficiency Tracking survey
○ Professional Assessment surveys such as Executive Career Field Candidate/Mentor questionnaires, Acting Director/Senior Executive Service applicant assessments
11. Program Management.
• Inquiry Status
• Inquiry date
• Enrollment status
• Enrollment date
• Pairing status
• Open/closed status
• Referral source
• Close reason
• Survey status
• Service start and end dates
• Target group
• Group location
• Organizational chart
• Service requested
• Organizational opportunities/challenges
• Complaints
• Barriers to work
• Signed agreement
12. Service Contact Information.
• Contact dates
• Contact time
• Contact type
• Contact notes
13. Development Assessments.
• Assessment type
• Results and summaries
14. Employee Requesting Information.
• Leadership interests and experiences
• Number of direct reports
• Current role descriptors
• Self-described characteristics
• Readiness for change
• Current and future role preferences
• Aspirations
15. Credentialing Audio Recordings and Transcripts.
• Audio file
Information in this system of records is provided by VA's employees associated to VA Medical Centers, VA Corporate Offices, VBA, NCA, VHA Corporate Offices, VHA Canteen, VISNs and facilities.
1. The record of an individual who is covered by a system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress, or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
2. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration and the General Services Administration in records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44, Chapter 29, of the United States Code.
3. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DOJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DOJ's request for the information, after either VA or DOJ determines that such information is relevant to DOJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that disclosure of the records to the DOJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
4. Disclosure may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has an agreement or contract to perform the services of the contract or agreement. This routine use includes disclosures by the individual or entity performing the service for VA to any secondary entity or individual to perform an activity that is necessary for individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to provide the service to VA.
5. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, that is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule, or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal, or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto.
6. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
7. VA may, on its own initiative disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by VA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out VA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by VA to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
b.
8. VA may disclose any audio files and accompanying transcripts to coaching credentialing entities for the sole purpose of evaluation of a coach who is applying for an advanced coaching credential.
9. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
10. VA may disclose information from this system to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
11. VA may disclose information from this system to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), including its General Counsel, information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, investigation, and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; for it to address matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, investigate representation petitions, and conduct or supervise representation elections.
12. VA may disclose information from this system to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as authorized by law.
Records are maintained on the HPDM1 Server and VACIN Server and backup servers in Little Rock, Arkansas and Cincinnati, Ohio.
Records are retrieved by name, social security number, position number, organization number, position number, or other assigned identifiers of the organizations, positions or individuals on whom they are maintained.
The records are disposed of in accordance with General records 4.3, item 031.
1. Access to and use of national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access, and VA has established security procedures to ensure that access is appropriately limited. Information security officers and system data stewards review and authorize data access requests. VA regulates data access with security software that authenticates users and requires individually-unique codes and passwords. VA requires information security training for all staff and instructs staff on the responsibility each person has for safeguarding data confidentiality.
2. Physical access to computer rooms housing national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts is restricted to authorized staff and protected by a variety of security devices. Unauthorized employees, contractors, and other staff are not allowed in computer rooms.
3. Data transmissions between operational systems and national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts maintained by this system of record are protected by state-of-the-art telecommunication software and hardware. This may include firewalls, intrusion detection devices, encryption, and other security measures necessary to safeguard data as it travels across the Wide Area Network.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact or the Program Office in which requests for services were made.
(See Record Access procedures above.)
Individuals who wish to determine whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the VA facility location at which they are or were employed. Inquiries should include the person's full name, social security number, dates of employment, date(s) of contact, and return address.
Under Title 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(6), the head of any agency may exempt any system of records within the agency from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, if the system of records is testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process. The Talent Assessment Data within the system of records is considered examination material used to determine if an employee has the qualifications, leadership skills and experience necessary to become a Medical Center Director.
Based upon the foregoing, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has exempted this system of records, to the extent that it encompasses information pertaining to criminal law enforcement related activities from the following provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(6):
5 U.S.C. § 552a(c)(3).
5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1) through (4).
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1).
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I).
5 U.S.C. § 552a(f).
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I).
5 U.S.C. § 552a(f).
Reasons for exemptions: The exemption of examination material in this system of records is necessary to ensure candid and complete assessment of individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in VHA. The disclosure of the Talent Assessment Data would compromise the objectivity of the examination for the individuals and the willingness to provide full, candid assessments by the reviewers.
Last full publication provided in 75 FR 34 dated February 22, 2010.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records entitled “The Revenue Program-Billing and Collections Records-VA” (114VA16) as set forth in a notice, published in the
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than April 13, 2018. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (704) 245-2492.
The System Number is changed from 114VA16 to 114VA10D to reflect the current organizational alignment.
System Manager is being amended to replace Chief Business Officer, Chief Business Office (16) with Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Office of Community Care (10D).
Categories of Individuals Covered by the System is being amended to add “or Community Care programs, such as Choice” to Item 9. Healthcare professionals providing examination or treatment to individuals under contract or resource sharing agreements.
Categories of Records in the System is being amended to remove the universal personal identification number. In Item 3, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9-CM will be replaced with ICD-10-CM. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) number was added to Item 6.
The Record Source Categories is being amended to change 77VA10Q to 77VA10A4 and 79VA19 to 79VA10P2.
The Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System has been amended by adding language to Routine Use #20 which states, “
Routine use #23 is also being added to state, “VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach. VA needs this routine use for the data breach response and remedial efforts with another Federal agency.”
Routine Use #24 is being added to state, “VA may disclose relevant information to attorneys, insurance companies, employers, third parties liable or potentially liable under health plan contracts, and courts, boards, or commissions, to the extent necessary to aid VA in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims authorized under Federal, State, or local laws, and regulations promulgated thereunder.” VA must be able to release billing information that is related to VA's claims for recovery to health insurers, workers compensation insurers, auto reparations insurers, and any other entity liable to pay VA.
Routine Use #25 is being added to state, “VA may disclose relevant information to health plans, quality review and/or peer review organizations in connection with the audit of claims or other review activities to determine quality of care or compliance with professionally accepted claims processing standards.” This routine use permits disclosure of information for quality assessment audits received by Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set or similar auditors.
Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records has been amended to replace “Paper records and
Temporary; destroy 6 years after final payment or cancellation, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. (GRS 1.1, Item 010) (DAA-GRS-2016-0001-0002)
Temporary; destroy or delete when 6 years old, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. (GRS 1.1 item 013) (DAA-GRS-2016-0001-0002).”
Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards is being amended to replace Automation Center (AC) with Austin Information Technology Center (AITC).
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. John Oswalt, Executive Director for Privacy, Department of Veterans Affairs approved this document on January 18, 2018, for publication.
The Revenue Program-Billing and Collections Records—VA (114VA10D)
None.
Records are maintained at each VA healthcare facility. In most cases, backup computer tape information is stored at off-site locations. Address locations for VA facilities are listed in VA Appendix 1 of the biennial publication of VA Privacy Act Issuances. In addition, information from these records or copies of records may be maintained at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC; the VA Austin Automation Center (AAC), Austin, Texas; Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Offices; VA Allocation Resource Center (ARC), Boston, Massachusetts, and contractor facilities.
The official responsible for policies and procedures is the Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Office of Community Care (10D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. The local officials responsible for maintaining the system are the Director of the facility where the individual is or was associated.
Title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 1710 and 1729.
The records and information are used for the billing of, and collections from a third party payer, including insurance companies, other Federal agencies, or foreign governments, for medical care or services received by a Veteran for a non-service connected condition or from a first party Veteran required to make copayments. The records and information are also used for the billing of and collections from other Federal agencies for medical care or services received by an eligible beneficiary. The data may be used to identify and/or verify insurance coverage of a Veteran or Veteran's spouse prior to submitting claims for medical care or services. The data may be used to support appeals for non-reimbursement of claims for medical care or services provided to a Veteran. The data may be used to enroll health care providers with health plans and VA's health care clearinghouse in order to electronically file third party claims. For the purposes of health care billing and payment activities to and from third party payers, VA will disclose information in accordance with the legislatively-mandated transaction standard and code sets promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The data may be used to make application for an NPI, as required by the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rule on Standard Unique Health Identifier for Healthcare Providers, 45 CFR part 162, for all health care professionals providing examination or treatment within VA health care facilities, including participation in pilot test of NPI enumeration system by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The records and information may be used for statistical analyses to produce various management, tracking and follow-up reports, to track and trend the reimbursement practices of insurance carriers, and to track billing and collection information. The data may be used to support, or in anticipation of supporting, reimbursement claims from community health care providers or their agents. The data may be used to support, or in anticipation of supporting, reimbursement claims from academic affiliates with which VA maintains a business relationship.
1. Veterans who have applied for healthcare services under Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 17, and in certain cases members of their immediate families.
2. Beneficiaries of other Federal agencies.
3. Individuals examined or treated under contract or resource sharing agreements.
4. Individuals examined or treated for research or donor purposes.
5. Individuals who have applied for Title 38 benefits but who do not meet the requirements under Title 38 to receive such benefits.
6. Individuals who were provided medical care under emergency conditions for humanitarian reasons.
7. Pensioned members of allied forces (Allied Beneficiaries) who are provided healthcare services under Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 1.
8. Healthcare professionals providing examination or treatment to any individuals within VA healthcare facilities.
9. Healthcare professionals providing examination or treatment to individuals under contract or resource sharing agreements or Community Care programs, such as Choice.
The records may include information related to:
1. The social security number and insurance policy number of the Veteran and/or Veteran's spouse. The record may include other identifying
2. Insurance company information specific to coverage of the Veteran and/or spouse to include annual deductibles and benefits.
3. Diagnostic codes (ICD-10-CM, CPT-4, and any other coding system) pertaining to the individual's medical, surgical, psychiatric, dental and/or psychological examination or treatment.
4. Charges claimed to a third party payer, including insurance companies, other Federal agencies, or foreign governments, based on treatment/services provided to the patient.
5. Charges billed to those Veterans who are required to meet co-payment obligations for treatment/services rendered by VA.
6. The name, social security number, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) number, National Provider Identifier (NPI) and credentials including provider's degree, licensure, certification, registration or occupation of healthcare providers.
7. Records of charges related to patient care that are created in anticipation of litigation in which the United States is a party or has an interest in the litigation or potential litigation, including a third-party tortfeasor, workers compensation, or no-fault automobile insurance cases. Such records are not subject to disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5).
The patient, family members or guardian, and friends, employers or other third parties when otherwise unobtainable from the patient or family; health insurance carriers; private medical facilities and healthcare professionals; state and local agencies; other Federal agencies; VA regional offices; Veterans Benefits Administration automated record systems, including Veterans and
Beneficiaries Identification and Records Location Subsystem—VA (38VA23) and the Compensation, Pension, Education and Rehabilitation Records—VA (58VA21/22); and various automated systems providing clinical and facilities to include Health Care Provider Credentialing and Privileging Records—VA (77VA10A4) and Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) (79VA10P2).
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. On its own initiative, VA may disclose information, except for the names and home address of veterans and their dependents, to a Federal, state, local, tribal or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
2. Disclosure may be made to an agency in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, or the District of Columbia government in response to its request or at the initiation of VA, in connection with the letting of a contract, other benefits by the requesting agency, or the lawful statutory, administrative, or investigative purpose of the agency to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision. However, names and addresses of veterans and their dependents will be released only to Federal entities.
3. Disclosure may be made to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.
4. Disclosure may be made to National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44 U.S.C.
5. Disclosure may be made to the Department of Justice and United States attorneys in defense or prosecution of litigation involving the United States, and to Federal agencies upon their request in connection with review of administrative tort claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2672.
6. Any information in this system of records, including personal information obtained from other Federal agencies through computer-matching programs, may be disclosed for the purposes identified below to any third party, except consumer reporting agencies, in connection with any proceeding for the collection of an amount owed to the United States by virtue of a person's participation in any benefit program administered by VA. Information may be disclosed under this routine use only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for the following purposes: (a) To assist VA in collection of Title 38 overpayments, overdue indebtedness, and/or costs of services provided individuals not entitled to such services; and (b) to initiate civil or criminal legal actions for collecting amounts owed to the United States and/or for prosecuting individuals who willfully or fraudulently obtain Title 38 benefits without entitlement. This disclosure is consistent with 38 U.S.C. 5701(b)(6).
7. The name and address of a veteran, other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such Veteran, including personal information obtained from other Federal agencies through computer matching programs, and any information concerning the Veteran's indebtedness to the United States by virtue of the person's participation in a benefits program administered by VA may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency for purposes of assisting in the collection of such indebtedness, provided that the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5701(g)(4) have been met.
8. The name of a veteran, or other beneficiary, other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, and any information concerning the individual's indebtedness by virtue of a person's participation in a medical care and treatment program administered by VA, may be disclosed to the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, for the collection of indebtedness arising from such program by the withholding of all or a portion of the person's Federal income tax refund. These records may be disclosed as part of a computer-matching program to accomplish these purposes.
9. Relevant information (excluding medical treatment information related to drug or alcohol abuse, infection with the human immunodeficiency virus or sickle cell anemia) may be disclosed to HHS for the purpose of identifying improper duplicate payments made by Medicare fiscal intermediaries where VA was authorized and was responsible for payment for medical services obtained at community healthcare facilities.
10. The social security number, universal personal identification number, NPI, credentials, and other identifying information of a healthcare provider may be disclosed to a third party where the third party requires the Department provide that information before it will pay for medical care provided by VA.
11. Relevant information may be disclosed to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, etc., with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practical for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor and/or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
12. Relevant information from this system of records may be disclosed to the National Practitioner Data Bank and/or State Licensing Board in the State(s) in which a practitioner is licensed, in which the VA facility is located, and/or in which an act or omission occurred upon which a medical malpractice claim was based when VA reports information concerning: (a) Any payment for the benefit of a physician, dentist, or other licensed healthcare practitioner which was made as the result of a settlement or judgment of a claim of medical malpractice if an appropriate determination is made in accordance with agency policy that payment was related to substandard care, professional incompetence or professional misconduct on the part of the individual; (b) a final decision which relates to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct that adversely affects the clinical privileges of a physician, dentist or other licensed healthcare practitioner for a period longer than 30 days; or, (c) the acceptance of the surrender of clinical privileges, or any restriction of such privileges by a physician, dentist, or other licensed healthcare practitioner either while under investigation by the healthcare entity relating to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct, or in return for not conducting such an investigation or proceeding. These records may also be disclosed as part of a computer-matching program to accomplish these purposes.
13. Relevant information may be disclosed from this system of records to any third party or Federal agency such as the Department of Defense, Office of Personnel Management, HHS and government-wide third-party insurers responsible for payment of the cost of medical care for the identified patients, in order for VA to seek recovery of the medical care costs. These records may also be disclosed as part of a computer matching program to accomplish these purposes.
14. Relevant information, including the nature and amount of a financial obligation, may be disclosed in order to assist VA in the collection of unpaid financial obligations owed VA, to a debtor's employing agency or commanding officer, so that the debtor employee may be counseled by his or her Federal employer or commanding officer. This purpose is consistent with 5 U.S.C. 5514, 4 CFR 102.5, and section 206 of Executive Order 11222 of May 8, 1965 (30 FR 6469).
15. Identifying information such as name, address, social security number and other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, may be disclosed to the National Practitioner Data Bank at the time of hiring and/or clinical privileging/re-privileging of healthcare practitioners, and at other times as deemed necessary by VA, in order for VA to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the hiring, privileging/re-privileging, retention or termination of the applicant or employee.
16. Disclosure of individually identifiable health information including billing information for the payment of care may be made by appropriate VA personnel, to the extent necessary and on a need-to-know basis consistent with good medical-ethical practices, to family members and/or the person(s) with whom the patient has a meaningful relationship.
17. Provider identifying information may be disclosed from this system of records to CMS to test the enumeration system for the NPI and once the system is operational, to obtain an NPI for any eligible healthcare professional providing examination or treatment with VA healthcare facilities.
18. Relevant information may be disclosed to community health care providers or their agents where the community health care provider provides health care treatment to veterans and requires the Department provide that information in order for that entity or its agent to submit, or in anticipation of submission of, a health care reimbursement claim or, in the case of the NPI, for permissible purposes specified in the HIPAA legislation (45 CFR part 162).
19. Relevant information may be disclosed to an academic affiliate with which VA maintains a business relationship, where the VA provider also maintains an appointment to that academic affiliate's medical staff. This disclosure is to support, or in anticipation of supporting, a health care reimbursement claim(s) or, in the case of the NPI, for permissible purposes specified in the HIPAA legislation (45 CFR part 162).
20. Any records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons under the following circumstances: When (1) it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is made to such agencies, entities, and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by VA to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
b.
21. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
22. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
23. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
24. VA may disclose relevant information to attorneys, insurance companies, employers, third parties liable or potentially liable under health plan contracts, and courts, boards, or commissions, to the extent necessary to aid VA in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims authorized under Federal, State, or local laws, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
25. VA may disclose relevant information to health plans, quality review and/or peer review organizations in connection with the audit of claims or other review activities to determine quality of care or compliance with professionally accepted claims processing standards.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12), VA may disclose records from this system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Records are maintained on paper or electronic media.
Records are retrieved by name, social security number or other assigned identifier of the individuals on whom they are maintained, or by specific bill number assigned to the claim of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Follow the requirement of RCS 10-1 Chapter 4 Item 4000.1 a & b.
4000.1 Financial transaction records related to procuring goods and services, paying bills, collecting debts, and accounting.
a. Official record held in the office of record.
Temporary; destroy 6 years after final payment or cancellation, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. (GRS 1.1, Item 010) (DAA-GRS-2016-0001-0002).
b. All Other copies.
Temporary; destroy or delete when 6 years old, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. (GRS 1.1 item 013) (DAA-GRS-2016-0001-0002).
1. Access to VA working and storage areas is restricted to VA employees on a “need-to-know” basis; strict control measures are enforced to ensure that disclosure to these individuals is also based on this same principle. Generally, VA file areas are locked after normal duty hours and the facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
2. Information in VistA may only be accessed by authorized VA personnel. Access to file information is controlled at two levels. The systems recognize authorized personnel by series of individually unique passwords/codes as a part of each data message, and personnel are limited to only that information in the file, which is needed in the performance of their official duties. Information that is downloaded from VistA and maintained on personal computers is afforded similar storage and access protections as the data that is maintained in the original files. Access to information stored on automated storage media at other VA locations is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes. Access by Office of Inspector General (OIG) staff conducting an audit, investigation, or inspection at the healthcare facility, or an OIG office location remote from the healthcare facility, is controlled in the same manner.
3. Information downloaded from VistA and maintained by the OIG headquarters and Field Offices on automated storage media is secured in storage areas for facilities to which only OIG staff have access. Paper documents are similarly secured. Access to paper documents and information on automated storage media is limited to OIG employees who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties. Access to information stored on automated storage media is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes.
4. Access to the VA Austin Information Technology Center (AITC) is generally restricted to AITC employees, custodial personnel, Federal Protective Service and other security personnel. Access to computer rooms is restricted to authorized operational personnel through electronic locking devices. All other persons gaining access to computer rooms are escorted. Information stored in the AITC databases may be accessed.
5. Access to records maintained at the VA Allocation Resource Center (ARC) and the VISN Offices is restricted to VA employees who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties. Access to information stored in electronic format is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes. Records are maintained in manned rooms during working hours. The facilities are protected from outside access during non-working hours by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they were treated.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
An individual who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained in this system under his or her name or other personal identifier, or wants to determine the contents of such record, should submit a written request or apply in person to the last VA healthcare facility where care was rendered. Addresses of VA healthcare facilities may be found in VA Appendix 1 of the biennial publication of VA Privacy Act Issuances. All inquiries must reasonably identify the place and approximate date that medical care was provided. Inquiries should include the patient's full name, social security number, insurance company information, policyholder and policy identification number as well as a return address.
None.
Last full publication provided in 70 FR 55207.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of amendment of system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records entitled “Library Network (VALNET)-VA” (136VA19E) as set forth in a notice, published in the
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than April 13, 2018. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone 704-245-2492.
The System Name is being changed from “Library Network (VALNET)-VA” to “VA Library Network (VALNET)-VA”.
The System Number is changed from 136VA19E to 136VA10P2 to reflect the current organizational alignment.
The System Manager has been amended to replace VHA Library Program Office (19E) with Director, VHA Library Network Office (10P2C).
The Categories of Individuals Covered by the System is being amended to include records being maintained for Veterans, family members and caregivers.
The Categories of Records in the System is being amended to remove 2. Patients. Included under this section is:
1. Equipment such as iPads, e-readers, and laptops as potential checkout material and record may include name, last four of social security number, email address, phone number, work or ward location of the user; and
2. Veterans, family members and caregivers as user and including the name of user are collected.
The Record Source Category is being amended to include the individual who use the library services.
Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records is being amended to replace Item XLV with 1950 library Services, Item 1. Temporary; destroy when superseded or obsolete (GRS 14, item 6).
Appendix A has been amended to remove the following libraries which are no longer operating: Library, VA Medical Center, 1700 East 38th Street, Marion, IN 46953-4589; Library, VA Medical Center, 2200 Gage Boulevard, Topeka, KS 66622-0001; Library, VA Medical Center, 1601 Perdido Street, New Orleans, LA 70112; Library, Perry Point VA Medical Center, Circle Drive Building 5H, Perry Point, MD 21902; Library, VA Medical Center, 325 East H Street, Iron Mountain, MI 49801; Library, VA Medical Center, 76 Veterans Way, Bath, NY 14810; Library, Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, 4800 Memorial Drive, Waco, TX 76711; Library, VA Medical Center, 2500 Overbrook Terrace, Madison, WI 53705-2286; Library, VA Medical Center, 1898 Fort Road, Sheridan, WY 82801-8320. The following address of Library, VA Medical Center, #1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, St. Louis, MO 63125-4199 to Library, VA Medical Center, 915 N Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63106.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. John Oswalt, Executive Director for Privacy, Department of Veterans Affairs approved this document on January 18, 2018 for publication.
“VA Library Network (VALNET)-VA” (136VA10P2).
None.
Records are maintained at each Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center library (see Appendix A) and VA Central Office Library at 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420.
Official responsible for policies and procedures; Network Librarian, Director, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Library Network Office (10P2C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. Officials maintaining the system; Director at the facility where the individuals are associated.
Title 38 United States Code Section 501.
The records and information may be used to track library materials checked out to library users and those materials that are overdue, materials borrowed from other libraries for library users, to track and recover costs of lost library materials to determine library materials to purchase and/or replace based on usage, to track users of library public access computers, and to compile management and statistical reports. Cost is recovered by Fiscal Service through Bills of Collection. If Bills of Collection are not paid, Fiscal Service may garnish paychecks, including Federal tax refunds, or turn the matter over to collection agencies.
The records may include information concerning all present and former VA employees, volunteers, students, contractors, regardless of whether they check out materials or use tables of content routing and interlibrary loan services. Records are maintained for Veterans, family members and caregivers that check out materials.
The records may include information related to:
1. Items checked out and in use (library books, journals, audiovisuals, and equipment such as iPads, e-readers, and laptops) and may include name, last four of social security number, email address, phone number, work or ward location of user.
2. Library public access computer work stations used by VA staff, Veterans, family members, and caregivers including name of user;
3. Name, last four digits of the social security number, email address, other assigned identifier, work location information, such as service, and extension for employees, students, and ward location for patients or other assigned identification.
Information in this system of records is provided by the individual, VA employees, volunteers, students, contractors, Veterans, and others who use the library services. Automated computer systems such as Integrated Library Systems (ILS) which are used to track items which have been checked out of the library may store the information.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 38 U.S.C. 7332,
1. Information from this system of records may be disclosed to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made on behalf of that individual.
2. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management inspections under authority of Title 44 United States Code.
3. Disclosure may be at VA's initiative made to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the agency becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a Federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the conducting of a security or suitability investigation of an individual, the reporting of an investigation, the letting of a grant or other benefit, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
5. Records from this system of records may be disclosed in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body when the Agency, or any Agency component or employee (in his or her official capacity as a VA employee), is a party to litigation; when the Agency determines that litigation is likely to affect the Agency, any of its components or employees, or the United States has an interest in the litigation, and such records are deemed to be relevant and necessary to the legal proceedings; provided that the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
6. Disclosure of relevant information may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, etc., with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
7. Disclosure may be made to officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
8. Disclosure may be made to officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law.
9. Disclosure may be made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discrimination.
10. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that disclosure of the records to the DoJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the
11. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
12. To disclose to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (including its General Counsel) information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or information in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; to disclose information in matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections.
13. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
14. VA may disclose information from this system of records relevant to a claim of a veteran or beneficiary, such as the name, address, the basis and nature of a claim, amount of benefit payment information, medical information, and military service and active duty separation information, at the request of the claimant to accredited service organizations, VA approved claim agents, and attorneys acting under a declaration of representation, so that these individuals can aid claimants in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims under the laws administered by VA. The name and address of a claimant will not, however, be disclosed to these individuals under this routine use if the claimant has not requested the assistance of an accredited service organization, claims agent or an attorney. VA must be able to disclose this information to accredited service organizations, VA approved claim agents, and attorneys representing veterans so they can assist veterans by preparing, presenting, and prosecuting claims under the laws administered by VA.
15. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
Records are maintained in electronic and/or paper format.
Records are retrieved by name, last four of the social security number and/or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
The VALNET records may be disposed of in accordance with the records retention standards authorized by the NARA General Records Schedule 14, item 6, and published in the Veterans Health Administration Records Control Schedule 10-1, 1950 library Services, Item 1. Temporary; destroy when superseded or obsolete (GRS 14, item 6).
1. Access to VA libraries is not restricted to VA employees. Generally the offices housing the files for storage of records are attended by staff who maintain the files during normal duty hours and after normal duty hours facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
2. Access to files is controlled by the employees who maintain the files. Access to computerized records is controlled by the use of security codes known only to authorize users.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting records in the system may write, call, or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact.
(See Record Access procedures above.)
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about themselves should contact the designated individual at the VA facility where the records are maintained. Individuals must furnish the following information in order for their records to be located and identified: a. Full name, b. dates of employment, service, hospital stay, or use of library, c. description of information being sought and, d. return address.
None.
Last full publication provided in 75 FR 72873.
Library, Alaska VA Healthcare System, 1201 North Muldoon, Anchorage, AK 99508
Library, Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System, 2400 Hospital Road, Tuskegee, AL 36083
Library, VA Medical Center, 1100 North College Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72703-1999
Library, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, 4300 W 7th St., Little Rock, AR 72205-5484
Library, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, 2200 Fort Roots Drive, North Little Rock, AR 72114
Library, VA Medical Center, 650 East Indian School Road, Phoenix, AZ 85012-1892
Library, VA Medical Center, 500 Highway 89 North, Prescott, AZ 86313
Library, VA Medical Center, 3601 South 6th Street, Tucson, AZ 85723-0001
Library, VA Medical Center, 2615 East Clinton Avenue, Fresno, CA 93703-2286
Library, VA Medical Center, 11201 Benton Street, Loma Linda, CA 92357-1000
Library, VA Medical Center, 5901 East 7th Street, Long Beach, CA 90822-5201
Library Service, VA Greater LA Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90073
Library, VA Medical Center, 3801 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1290
Library Service, Northern California Health Care System, 5243 Dudley Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95652
Library, VA Medical Center, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA 92161-4041
Library, VA Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street, San Francisco, CA 94121-1598
Library, VA Medical Center, 2121 North Avenue, Grand Junction, CO 81501-6499
Library, VA Medical Center, 950 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516
Library, VA Medical Center, 50 Irving Street NW, Washington, DC 20422
Library, VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420-0002
Library, VA Medical Center, 1601 Kirkwood Highway, Wilmington, DE 19805
Library, VA Medical Center, 10000 Bay Pines Blvd., Bay Pines, FL 33708
Library, VA Medical Center, 1601 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608-1197
Library, VA Medical Center, 619 South Marion Street, Lake City, FL 32025
Library, Miami VA Healthcare System, 1201 NW 16th St, Miami, FL 33125
Library, VA Health Care Center, 5201 Raymond Street, Orlando, FL 32803
Library, VA Medical Center, 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612-4745
Library, VA Medical Center, 7305 N Military Trail, West Palm Beach, FL 33410-6400
Library, VA Medical Center, 1 Freedom Way, Augusta, GA 30904-6285
Library, VA Medical Center-Atlanta, 1670 Clairmont Road, Decatur, GA 30033
Library, VA Medical Center, 500 West Fort Street, Boise, ID 83702-4598
Library, Jesse Brown VAMC, 820 S Damen Avenue, Chicago, IL 60612-3740
Library, VA Medical Center, 1900 East Main Street, Danville, IL 61832-5198
Library, VA Medical Center, 5th St & Roosevelt Ave, Hines, IL 60141-5142
Library, VA Medical Center, 2401 West Main Street, Marion, IL 62959-1188
Library, VA Medical Center, 3001 N Green Bay Road, North Chicago, IL 60064-3096
Library, Northern Indiana Health Care System, 2121 Lake Avenue, Fort Wayne, IN 46805
Library, VA Medical Center, 1481 West 10th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-2803
Library, VA Medical Center, 2250 Leestown Road, Lexington, KY 40511-1093
Library, VA Medical Center, 800 Zorn Avenue, Louisville, KY 40206-1499
Library, VA Medical Center, 2495 Shreveport Highway, Alexandria, LA 71306-9004
Library, VA Medical Center, 1601 Perdido Street, New Orleans, LA 70112
Library, VA Medical Center, 510 East Stoner Avenue, Shreveport, LA 71101-4295
Library, Edith Nourse Memorial Veterans Hospital, 200 Springs Road, Bedford, MA 01730
Library, Boston Healthcare System, 940 Belmont St., Brockton, MA 02301
Library, VA Medical Center, 421 North Main Street, Leeds, MA 01053-9714
Library, VA Maryland Healthcare System, 10 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201-1524
Library, Togus VA Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Dr., Togus, ME 04330-6795
Library, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Library, VA Medical Center, 5500 Armstrong Road, Battle Creek, MI 49037
Library, VA Medical Center, 4646 John R. St., Detroit, MI 48201-1916
Library, VA Medical Center, 1500 Weiss Street, Saginaw, MI 48602
Library, VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417-2236
Library, VA Medical Center, 4801 Eighth Street North, St. Cloud, MN 56303-2099
Library, VA Medical Center, 400 Veterans Avenue, Biloxi, MS 39531-2410
Library, VA Medical Center, 1500 East Woodrow Wilson, Jackson, MS 39216-5199
Library, VA Medical Center, 800 Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO 65201-5275
Library, VA Medical Center, 4801 Linwood Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64128-2295
Library, VA Medical Center, 915 N Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63106
Library, VA Medical Center, 3687 Veterans Dr., Fort Harrison, MT 59636
Library, VA Medical Center, 1100 Tunnel Road, Asheville, NC 28805-2087
Library, VA Medical Center, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC 27705-3875
Library, VA Medical Center, 1601 Brenner Avenue, Salisbury, NC 28144
Library, VA Medical Center, 2101 Elm Street, Fargo, ND 58102- 2417
Library, VA Medical Center, 4101 Woolworth Avenue, Omaha, NE 68105-1873
Library, VA Medical Center, 718 Smyth Road, Manchester, NH 03104-4098
Library, East Orange Campus, 385 Tremont Ave., East Orange, NJ 07018
Library, VA Medical Center, 151 Knollcroft Road, Lyons, NJ 07939-5000
Library, VA Medical Center, 1501 San Pedro Drive SE, Albuquerque, NM 87108-5138
Library, Southern Nevada Health Care System, 6900 North Pecos Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89086
Library, Reno VA Medical Center, 1000 Locust Street, Reno, NV 89502
Library, VA Medical Center, 113 Holland Avenue, Albany, NY 12208-3410
Library, VA Medical Center, 130 West Kingsbridge Road, Bronx, NY 10468
Library, VA Medical Center, 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209
Library, VA Medical Center, 400 Fort Hill Avenue, Canandaigua, NY 14424-1188
Library, VA Medical Center, 423 East 23rd Street, New York, NY 10010-5050
Library, VA Medical Center, 79 Middleville Road-Bldg. 12, Northport, NY 11768-2290
Library, VA Medical Center, 17273 State Route 104, Chillicothe, OH 4560
Library, VA Medical Center, 3200 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45220-2288
Library, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, 10701 East Blvd., Cleveland, OH 44106
Library Service, VA Medical Center, 4100 West 3rd Street, Dayton, OH 45428
Library, VA Medical Center, 1011 Honor Heights Drive, Muskogee, OK 74401-1399
Library, VA Medical Center, 921 Northeast 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73104-5028
Library, Portland VA Medical Center, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Rd., Portland, OR 97239
Library, Southern Oregon Rehab Center and Clinic, 8495 Crater Lake Highway, White City, OR 97503-1088
Library, VA Medical Center, 2907 Pleasant Valley Blvd., Altoona, PA 16602-4377
Library, VA Medical Center, 325 New Castle Road, Butler, PA 16001-2480
Library, VA Medical Center, 1400 Black Horse Hill Road, Coatesville, PA 19320-2096
Library, Erie VA Medical Center, 135 E 38th Street, Erie, PA 16504-1559
Library, VA Medical Center, 1700 S Lincoln Avenue, Lebanon, PA 17042-7597
Library, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, 3900 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Library, Pittsburgh Healthcare System, 1010 Delafield Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15215
Library, Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C, Pittsburgh, PA 15240
Library, VA Medical Center, 1111 East End Boulevard, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711-0026
Library, VA Medical Center, 10 Calle Casia, San Juan, PR 00921-3201
Library, Providence Medical Center, 830 Chalkstone Avenue, Providence, RI 02908-4799
Library, VA Medical Center, 109 Bee Street, Charleston, SC 29401-5799
Library, WJB Dorn VA Medical Center, 6439 Garners Ferry Road, Columbia, SC 29209
Library, VA Black Hill Health Care System, 500 North 5th Street, Hot Springs, SD 57747
Library, VA Medical Center, 113 Comanche Road, Fort Meade, SD 57741-1099
Library, Sioux Falls VA Medical Center, 2501 W 22nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57117
Library, VA Medical Center, 1030 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN 38104-2193
Library, VA Medical Center, Sydney & Lamont Sts., (Johnson City), Mountain Home, TN 37684-5001
Library, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, 3400 Lebanon Pike, Murfreesboro, TN 37129
Library, VA Medical Center, 1310 24th Avenue, South, Nashville, TN 37212-2637
Library, VA Medical Center, 6010 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106-1992
Library, VA Medical Center, 1201 East 9th Street, Bonham, TX 75418-4019
Library, VA Medical Center, 4500 South Lancaster Road, Dallas, TX 75216-7191
Library, VA Medical Center, 2002 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030-4298
Library, VA Medical Center, Veterans Memorial Drive, Temple, TX 76504-7497
Library, VA Medical Center, 500 Foothill Boulevard, Salt Lake City, UT 84148
Library, Hampton VA Medical Center, 100 Emancipation Drive, Hampton, VA 23667-0001
Library, VA Medical Center, 1201 Broad Rock Blvd., Richmond, VA 23249-0001
Library, VA Medical Center, 1970 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153-6478
Library, VA White River Junction VA MC, 215 North Main Street, White River Junction, VT 05009
Library, VA Medical Center, 1660 S Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108-1597
Library, VA Medical Center, 4815 North Assembly Street, Spokane, WA 99205-6197
Library, VA Medical Center, 9600 Veterans Drive, Tacoma, WA 98493
Library, VA Medical Center, 77 Wainwright, Walla Walla, WA 99362
Library, VA Medical Center, 5000 West National Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53295-0001
Library, VA Medical Center, 500 East Veterans Street, Tomah, WI 54660-3100
Library, VA Medical Center, 200 Veterans Avenue, Beckley, WV 25801-6499
Library, VA Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Clarksburg, WV 26301
Library, VA Medical Center, 1540 Spring Valley Drive, Huntington, WV 25704
Library, VA Medical Center, 510 Butler Avenue, Martinsburg, WV 25401-0205
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Leather Finishing Operations to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category and determined that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. However, the EPA is proposing amendments to regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); amendments to add electronic reporting; and amendments to clarify certain rule requirements and provisions. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. See section I.C of this preamble for instructions on submitting CBI.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared to show a current, valid state- or federal-approved picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. An expired form of identification will not be permitted. Please note that the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by a noncompliant state, you must present an additional form of identification to enter a federal facility. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badge, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards. Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at
For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Bill Schrock, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5032; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address:
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. On July 16, 1992, we published an initial list of source categories to be regulated (57 FR 31576),
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194).
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are “area sources.” For major sources, CAA section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT “floor.” The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (
The approach in the CAA process used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination “considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. In conducting this so-called “technology review,” the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor.
The Leather Finishing NESHAP was promulgated on February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9156) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. The Leather Finishing NESHAP defines “leather finishing” as “a single process or group of processes used to adjust and improve the physical and aesthetic characteristics of the leather surface through the multistage application of a coating comprised of dyes, pigments, film-forming materials, and performance modifiers dissolved or suspended in liquid carriers.” 40 CFR 63.5460. The Leather Finishing NESHAP does not apply to equipment used solely for leather tanning operations or to portions of leather finishing operations using a solvent degreasing process subject to the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.5290(c)).
There are currently four existing leather finishing operations that were identified as subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP: S.B. Foot Tanning Company of Red Wing, MN; Alliance Leather, Inc. of Peabody, MA; Pearl Leather Finishers, Inc. of Johnstown, NY; and Tasman Leather Group, LLC of Hartland, ME.
In the overall process of leather products manufacturing, leather finishing is considered a dry operation as opposed to the “wet-end” operations associated with leather tanning. Leather finishing operations can be co-located with wet-end tannery operations or performed in stand-alone facilities. None of the four existing facilities subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP perform the initial wet-end tanning process that produces the commodity product known as “wet blues” or “blue stock;” however, based on information available in the facility operating permits, the S.B. Foot and Tasman facilities each perform retanning, coloring, and fat liquoring operations. These are wet-end operations that soften, color, and restore fats and oils to the blue stock. The equipment used solely for leather tanning operations is not subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP.
In the dry-end leather finishing operations, coatings are typically applied to the leather substrate using spray, roll, and flow coating techniques. The emission source types subject to the emission limits under the Leather Finishing NESHAP include, but are not limited to coating and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers. Emissions of HAP occur from volatilization during the application of the coating, drying, or curing of the coating, and from handling, storage, and clean-up of the finishing materials. Wastewaters laden with HAP are also a potential source of emissions at facilities that use water curtains and water baths for particulate control. The emission point types associated with these emission sources include process vents, storage vessels, wastewater, and fugitive sources.
In developing the Leather Finishing NESHAP, the EPA established MACT standards for four types of leather product process operations: (1) Upholstery leather with greater than or equal to 4 grams of add-on finish per square foot of leather; (2) upholstery leather with less than 4 grams of add-on finish per square foot of leather; (3)
Based on the data collected as described in section II.C and D of this preamble, HAP emissions from this source category include propyl cellosolve, glycol ethers, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, trimethylamine, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, and chromium (III) compounds.
For this RTR, the EPA collected information from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI, version 1), from facility permits and permit applications, and through discussions with facility representatives and state permitting authorities.
The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes information necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. We used NEI emissions and supporting data as the primary source of information to develop the model input file for the risk assessment (hereafter referred to as the “RTR emissions dataset”). For more details on the NEI, see
The EPA also gathered information on annual emissions, emission points, air pollution control devices, and process operations from facility construction and operating permits. We collected permits and supporting documentation from state permitting authorities either through direct contact with the agencies or through state-maintained online databases. The NEI and facility permits contained much of the information we used to develop the RTR emissions dataset. Supplemental information was collected via communication with facility representatives.
The EPA contacted facility representatives for three of the four leather finishing operations subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP (identified in section II.B of this preamble) to collect supplemental and clarifying information for use in the RTR emissions dataset. Facility representatives provided information including production capacities, coating formulations, HAP emissions, and operating schedules. We were unable to establish contact with facility representatives for Alliance Leather, Inc. of Peabody, MA; however, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection confirmed the facility was in operation at the time of our inquiry (November 2016) and provided a facility annual emissions report for the 2015 reporting year. Contacts with facility representatives, our review of permit documentation, and our review of the 2014 NEI are documented in a separate memorandum titled
The EPA's Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) database was used as a tool to identify which leather finishing operations were potentially subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the search feature in ECHO, the EPA identified 120 facilities that could potentially be subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. The EPA also reviewed the membership directory of the Leather Industries of America trade association and supporting documentation for the 2002 rulemaking and identified an additional 35 facilities with operations potentially subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. We then searched state Web sites for operating permits for these facilities to determine whether the permits stated the facility contained leather finishing operations subject to the rule. For facilities for which permits were unavailable, we reviewed company Web sites, online news articles, and aerial imagery to determine if the facility was still in operation. Of the 155 identified facilities, we determined that 24 facilities perform leather finishing operations and 131 facilities are either closed or do not perform leather finishing operations. Of the 24 facilities performing leather finishing operations, only four are subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. The 20 remaining facilities are area sources and not subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP.
The EPA searched for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) determinations in the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC). The RBLC is a database that contains case-specific information of air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions by a certain amount, an NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined information contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used at leather finishing operations to reduce air emissions.
The EPA also reviewed other information sources to determine whether there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies in the leather finishing operations source category. We reviewed subsequent regulatory actions for sources similar to leather finishing operations and conducted a review of literature published by industry organizations, technical journals, and government organizations. Additional details regarding our review of these information sources is contained in the memorandum titled
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step process to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and, thus, “[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under [previous] section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.” 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, “the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.”
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.
See 54 FR at 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explained that “an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.”
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) Conducting facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources combined in the
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether it is “necessary” to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts, and we also considered the emission reductions. In addition, we considered the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources.
Based on our analyses of the available data and information, we identify potential developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a “development”:
• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards;
• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction;
• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards;
• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and
• Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Leather Finishing Operations source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.
The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The eight sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document, which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models:
Data for four leather finishing operations as described in section II.C of this preamble were used to create the RTR emissions dataset. The emission sources in the RTR emissions dataset include the following types of emissions sources currently regulated by the Leather Finishing NESHAP: Coating and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers. The RTR emissions dataset also includes emissions from buffing operations. This RTR emissions dataset is based primarily on emissions data from the 2014 NEI, facility permits and permit supporting documentation, a state-provided facility annual emissions report, and information obtained through contact with facility representatives. These data sources provided all of the emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset and nearly all of the facility-specific data needed to conduct the risk modeling analysis. However, there were a few instances where default values were used to fill gaps in the facility-specific data used in the risk modeling analysis. For example, default values were used for fugitive release parameters. Use of defaults is discussed in detail in the memorandum titled
The RTR emissions dataset was refined following an extensive quality assurance (QA) check of source locations, emission release characteristics, and annual emission estimates. We checked the coordinates of each emission source in the dataset using a computer program that renders a three-dimensional representation of Earth based on satellite imagery to ensure the emission point locations were correct. We also confirmed that each stack parameter was within acceptable QA range check boundaries. For further information on the EPA's QA review, see the memorandum titled
The available emissions data used to develop the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These “actual” emission levels are often lower than the emission levels required to comply with the current MACT standards. The emissions level
We used the RTR emissions dataset discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble to estimate allowable emissions levels. The types and sources of data we used to estimate allowable emissions vary by facility and leather finishing operation type. Because the Leather Finishing NESHAP MACT limits are production-based limits (
For Alliance Leather, we estimated allowable emissions for organic HAP using the Leather Finishing NESHAP limit on total HAP emissions that is specified in the facility's permit, which is 3.7 pounds of HAP emitted per 1,000 square feet of leather processed. The facility's total allowable annual HAP emission rate was estimated to be the product of this HAP limit (3.7 pounds per 1,000 square feet of leather processed), the design production capacity of the leather finishing process specified in the operating permit (16,200 square feet per hour), and the annual operating schedule contained in the 2014 NEI (2,000 hours per year). Given that we do not have actual production data for this leather finishing operation, we could not calculate the MACT-allowable emissions level as described above. However, using design production capacity in place of actual production is a more conservative approach, yielding a higher estimate for allowable organic HAP emissions. As further detailed in the memorandum cited above in this section, this approach yielded a total allowable annual HAP emission rate of 60 tpy, equivalent to 118 times the actual emission rate. Allowable organic HAP emissions for the risk modeling file were estimated by multiplying by 118 the actual organic HAP emission rates for each emission release point, emission process, and emission unit combination.
For S.B. Foot Tanning Co. and Pearl Leather Finishers, Inc, we also do not have actual production data. Further, S.B. Foot has multiple leather finishing operations, each subject to a different production-based NESHAP limit. To calculate the MACT-allowable emissions level for each leather finishing operation at the facility, we would need the actual production data for each leather finishing operation. Given our data limitations for these two facilities, we identified an alternative approach for estimating allowable emissions that was not available for Alliance Leather. S.B. Foot and Pearl Leather Finishers are subject to permitted mass-based limits on volatile organic compound(s) (VOC) emissions in tpy. We determined that we could use each facility's permitted VOC limit to estimate allowable organic HAP emissions because all organic HAP emitted are VOC and, in the coating formulations, there is little variation in the ratio of total organic HAP to total VOC. Using the ratio of each facility's permitted VOC emission limit to its reported
For Tasman Leather Group, LLC., allowable emissions were estimated using the maximum HAP emissions allowed for area sources, which is 10 tpy for all HAP emitted (refer to the memorandum,
We estimated allowable chromium (III) emissions from buffing operations as follows. For S.B. Foot, the allowable rate for each chromium-emitting emission release point was set equal to the potential to emit value in the facility's permit technical support document (TSD), which is 0.319 tpy chromium (III). No additional restrictions on chromium (III) emissions were identified. For Pearl Leather Finishers and Tasman Leather Group, we used emission factors presented in the S.B. Foot permit TSD to estimate the allowable emission rate for each chromium emission release point. For Pearl Leather Finishers, based on communication with facility representatives regarding average
We solicit comment on our proposed methods for estimating allowable emissions. In addition to general comments on these proposed methods, we are interested in additional data that may improve our estimation of allowable emissions.
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3). The HEM-3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid are used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We calculate the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks are calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper bound estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.
To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from the facilities in the source category, the EPA sums the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC (
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,
To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.”
ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.”
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, facility-specific actual emissions were used to calculate peak hourly emissions in our acute inhalation screening risk assessment. For each HAP emitted by a facility, the peak hourly emission rate was calculated by dividing the actual annual emission rate by facility-specific annual operating hours and multiplying this hourly rate by an acute emission multiplier of 1.8. The multiplier was developed using U.S. census data reported in 2012 through 2017 for leather finishing operations production capacity utilization over the period 2011 through 2016. The multiplier was calculated as the ratio of the highest
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For this source category, the data refinements employed consisted of ensuring the locations where the maximum HQ occurred were off facility property and where the public could potentially be exposed. Also in estimating acute risks for the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we employed the following data refinements in calculating peak hourly emissions, as described above in this section: Used facility-specific operating hour data and developed an industry-specific multiplier based on industry-specific U.S. census data. These refinements are discussed more fully in the
The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (
For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category.
While emission control technologies were considered, the analysis determined the available control technologies were not cost effective for reducing HAP emissions from leather finishing operations. Therefore, we did not assess risk on the emission control options. For more information regarding analysis of available control technologies, see the memorandum,
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for adverse environmental effects as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines “adverse environmental effect” as “any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.”
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as “environmental HAP,” in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread.
For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions, no further evaluation of ecological impacts was conducted for this source category.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the Leather
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire “facility,” where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or “non-category” data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted “facility-wide” for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risks or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location.
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That is, they represent a “plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity” (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit).
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (
Although every effort is made to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during this same time period. For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
We present results of the Leather Finishing Operations source category risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the residual risk document,
Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category.
The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.04. While we would have estimated incremental individual lifetime cancer risks as discussed in section III.C.3.b of this preamble, there were no carcinogenic HAP emissions from this source category, so the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk is 0 and the total estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based on actual emission levels is no excess cancer cases per year.
Table 2 of this preamble indicates that for the Leather Finishing Operations source category, the maximum HQ is 3, driven by propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers. The only acute dose-response value for propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers is the REL; therefore, only the HQ
There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway risks as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
There are no “environmental HAP” emitted by facilities in this source category. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to provide context for the source category risks. Using the NEI data described in sections II.C and III.C of this preamble, the maximum cancer risk in the facility-wide assessment was 0.09-in-1 million and the maximum chronic noncancer HI index was 0.1 (for the reproductive system), both driven by emissions from external combustion boilers.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Leather Finishing Operations source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for 1 of the 11 demographic groups, Ages 65 and up, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from leather finishing operations, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report,
We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and non-cancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum non-cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute non-cancer HQ, the extent of non-cancer risks, the distribution of cancer and non-cancer risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed are below 1-in-1 million from both actual and allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows no cancer incidence, as well as maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value of 0.04, which is significantly below 1. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multi-pathway health effects. The acute
Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties, we propose to find that the risks from the Leather Finishing Operations source category are acceptable.
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Leather Finishing Operations source category are acceptable, risk estimates indicate the maximum acute non-cancer HQ screening estimate was greater than 1, driven by emissions of propyl cellosolve and glycol ethers and based on allowable emissions, as further discussed in section IV.A.2 of this preamble. We considered options for further reducing gaseous organic HAP emissions from leather finishing operations. The greatest reduction in organic HAP emissions that could be achieved for these operations would result from use of a concentrator followed by a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), which we estimate would remove 98 percent of organic HAP emissions. Biological treatment together with use of a concentrator would achieve 84-percent removal of organic HAP emissions. Section IV.C of this preamble discusses the costs and impacts associated with use of these control technologies. The resulting cost-effectiveness values for operating the concentrator followed by a RTO and for operating the concentrator plus biological treatment are $54,000 and $62,000 per ton of HAP removed, respectively. Due to our determinations that cancer risks are below 1-in-1 million and that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is below 1, uncertainties associated with the acute screening risk estimate (refer to the risk report titled
We did not identify emissions of any of the eight environmental HAP included in our environmental risk screening, and we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to promulgate a more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors.
For the reasons above, we are not proposing to make any amendments to the existing NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2).
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in the practices, processes, and control technologies for the Leather Finishing Operations source category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emissions sources that are currently regulated by the Leather Finishing NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to, coating and spraying equipment, coating storage and mixing, and dryers.
As discussed further in sections II.C and D of this preamble, we conducted a search of the RBLC, other regulatory actions (MACT standards, area source standards, and residual risk standards) since the 2002 Leather Finishing NESHAP, literature related to research conducted for emission reductions from leather finishing operations emission sources, and state permits.
We reviewed these data sources for information on add-on control technologies, other treatment units, work practices, procedures, and process alternatives that were not considered during the development of the Leather Finishing NESHAP. We also looked for information on improvements in add-on control technology, other treatment units, work practices, procedures, and process changes or pollution prevention alternatives that have occurred since development of the Leather Finishing NESHAP.
After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we identified two control technologies for further evaluation that are technically feasible for use at leather finishing operations, but were not investigated during the original rule development: biological treatment and concentrators. Biological treatment was identified as a result of our literature review. In biological treatment, organic pollutants are converted to water and carbon dioxide after being consumed as food by microbes. Biological treatment can include biofilters, bio-trickling filters, and bioscrubbers among others. The use of a concentrator was identified by our review of residual risk standards. The technology review conducted for the Ship Building and Ship Repair source category identified the use of a concentrator, combined with an RTO, to control emissions from spray booths (75 FR 80239). A concentrator uses an adsorbent to remove organic pollutants from an exhaust stream. Those pollutants are then desorbed from the adsorbent material using a stream much smaller in volume than the original exhaust stream. This lower flow rate stream is then directed to an RTO to destroy the desorbed pollutants. By using a concentrator, the resulting low flow rate, higher pollutant concentration stream is more economical to treat in an RTO than a high volume low concentration stream. The economics of operating a biological treatment unit could also potentially be improved in a similar manner by use of a concentrator.
We evaluated the annual cost and emissions reductions of using biological treatment to reduce HAP emissions at each of the four leather finishing operations subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. Annual costs for each facility ranged from $43,000 to $417,000 per year for a total of approximately $840,000 for the industry. Assuming a control efficiency of 85 percent, HAP emissions would be reduced by approximately 0.43 tpy for the facility with the smallest projected reduction to 14 tpy for the facility with the largest projected reduction, for a cumulative total of 18 tpy for the four facilities subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. To install biological treatment at each facility, the resulting cost effectiveness ranged from $30,000 to $110,000 per ton of HAP reduced. Considering the high costs per ton of HAP reduced associated with the installation of biological treatment, we did not consider this technology to be cost effective for further reducing HAP emissions from leather finishing operations.
During proposal of the Leather Finishing NESHAP, we considered the use of an RTO to control HAP emissions from leather finishing operations as a “beyond-the-floor” option; however, we rejected it because of a significantly higher cost per ton of emissions reductions (65 FR 58706). Our technology review revealed the use of a concentrator in addition to an RTO as a potential improvement in add-on control technology. We evaluated the annual cost and emissions reductions of using a rotary concentrator combined with an RTO and, as an alternative, a rotary concentrator combined with a
Considering the results of the technology review, we conclude that changes to the leather finishing operations emission limits are not warranted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are, therefore, not proposing to make any amendments to the existing NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment on our proposed decision.
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in
In its 2008 decision in
The Leather Finishing NESHAP currently requires that the standards apply at all times, consistent with
As is explained in more detail below, we are proposing two revisions to the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT to eliminate two General Provisions that include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are proposing to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained further below. Finally, we are proposing to revise the Deviation Notification Report and related records as they relate to malfunctions, as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so.
The current rule specifies that the standards apply at all times. In promulgating the original NESHAP for Leather Finishing Operations, the EPA took into account startup and shutdown periods by applying a standard based on total coating used and HAP content and requiring a mass balance compliance method that was applicable for all operations, even periods of startup and shutdown. As a result, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the current requirement that all standards apply during those periods. However, as noted above and discussed further below, the current rule incorporates two general provisions that include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM, and the rule includes language that differentiates between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty, and these provisions are not necessary or appropriate in light of the requirement that the standards apply at all times. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of
As the Court recognized in
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information.
For the Leather Finishing Operations source category, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards. There are no instances where pollution control equipment could malfunction because none of the four leather finishing operations subject to the standard use pollution control equipment. Further, the standards are expressed as a yearly rolling average, and compliance is primarily dependent on the coating's HAP composition. Therefore, a malfunction of process equipment is not likely to result in a violation of the standards, and we have no information to suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish standards for any type of malfunction associated with leather finishing operations. We encourage commenters to provide any such information.
In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by combining all of paragraph (e) into one row and changing the “yes” in column four to “no.” Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the existing requirement that the standards apply at all times, as specified in 40 CFR 63.5320(a). Additional language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary if the SSM exemption does not apply. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5320(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. If the SSM exemption does not apply, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.5320(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are proposing to eliminate the sentence “This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.” in 40 CFR 63.5360(b), which refers to the requirement to report each instance in which you, a source, did not meet the standard. This sentence was originally included to clarify the EPA's intent at the time regarding the standards applying at all times; however, this clarifying language is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the proposed new General Duty language discussed in section IV.D.1.a of this preamble because the language differentiates between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by adding a separate row for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and specifying “no” in column four. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.5380(b). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restates the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered “representative” for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown
As discussed in section IV.D.1.e of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the Deviation Notification Report to include two new reporting elements: (1) An estimate of the quantity of HAP emitted during the 12-month period of the report in excess of the standard, and (2) the cause of the events that resulted in the deviation from the standard (including unknown cause, if applicable). The EPA is proposing that any source submitting a Deviation Notification Report also keep a record of this information. The source would also be required to include a record of the actions taken to minimize emissions. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. Further, the EPA is clarifying related records already required under 40 CFR 63.5430(b) as part of the Deviation Notification Report under 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3), but not clearly listed, by specifically listing those required records in 40 CFR 63.5430(h) as: (1) The 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, and, (2) each type of leather product process operation performed during the 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred.
Finally, we are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) to clarify the recordkeeping requirements for facilities that deviate from the standards as a result of a malfunction. In column five, we are proposing to replace the sentence “Subpart TTTT has no recordkeeping requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction events” with the phrase “See § 63.5360 for CMS recordkeeping requirements if there is a deviation from the standard.” This revision clarifies that certain records (
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart TTTT (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to clarify the reporting requirements for facilities that deviate from the standards as a result of a malfunction. In column five, we are proposing to replace the sentence “Subpart TTTT has no startup, shutdown, and malfunction reporting requirements” with the sentence “See § 63.5420(b) for reporting requirements if there is a deviation from the standard.” This revision clarifies that the Deviation Notification Report must be submitted if there is a deviation from the standards due to a malfunction. We are also proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the Deviation Notification Report already required under this rule. The Leather Finishing NESHAP currently requires this report to include (under 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(3)) each type of leather product process operation performed
We are proposing that the definition of “Deviation” be revised to remove language that was originally included to clarify the EPA's intent at the time regarding the standards applying at all times; however, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to use this language in light of the proposed new General Duty language discussed in section IV.D.1.a of this preamble because the language differentiates between normal operations, startup, and shutdown, and malfunction events. The current definition of “Deviation” is “any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limited to any emission limits or work practice standards; or (2) fails to meet any emission limits, operating limits, or work practice standards in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.” We are proposing to eliminate the second criteria for the reasons stated above. The proposed new definition reads: “Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source, fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limits or work practice standards.”
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners or operators of leather finishing operations submit electronic copies of required performance test reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Under current requirements, paper reports are often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic storage of such reports make data more accessible for review, analysis, and sharing. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
The EPA estimates that no existing leather finishing operation subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP uses a control device to comply with the NESHAP. As such, no existing leather finishing operation is required to conduct performance tests or submit test reports, or would be required to submit electronic copies of test reports.
In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a plan
The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly interface that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant (
The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions factors will provide more confidence that the factor is of higher quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
Additionally, by making the records, data, and reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having performance test reports and air emission data readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be improved and achieved within a shorter period of time. These data will provide useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and maintained in practice within a source category and across source categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also be used to inform the technology-review process by providing information on improvements to add-on control technology and new control technology.
Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's OAQPS would have air emissions and performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated air agencies or industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial ICRs in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports from the EPA Regional offices. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, and, thus, minimize the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of electronically submitted data and reports.
Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because performance test data would be readily-available in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic format facilitates review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as long as they have access to the Internet). The ability to access and review reports electronically assists air agencies in determining compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and accurately, potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public.
The proposed electronic reporting of data is consistent with electronic data trends (
Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
In 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(4), we address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude you from accessing the system and submitting required reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, and the unavailability prevents you from submitting a report by the required date, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 5 business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate timeframe because, if the system is down prior to this time, you still have one week to complete reporting once the system is back online. However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, we realize that this could greatly impact your ability to submit a required report on time. We will notify you about known outages as far in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI Web site, and posting on the CDX Web site so that you can plan accordingly and still meet your reporting deadline. However, if a planned or unplanned outage occurs and you believe that it will affect or it has affected your ability to comply with an electronic reporting requirement, we have provided a process to assert such a claim.
In 40 CFR 63.5420(c)(5), we address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule.
We are proposing these potential extensions to protect facilities from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control as described above. We are not proposing an extension for other instances. Facilities should register for CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance date, in order to make sure that they can complete the identity proofing process prior to the initial compliance date. Additionally, we recommend facilities start developing reports early, in case any questions arise during the reporting process.
We are proposing revisions to clarify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for control devices and the provisions for alternative schedules. We are also proposing one correction to the rule. Our proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below.
Since the original Leather Finishing NESHAP was promulgated, no leather finishing operations have elected to use a control device to comply with the standards, and we do not anticipate that any facilities will elect to use a control device in the foreseeable future; however, we are taking this opportunity to propose clarifying text to assist any facility that elects in the future to use a control device to comply with the standards. Currently, the Leather Finishing NESHAP (
We are also proposing to clarify in two ways the language in 40 CFR 63.5420(b)(4) regarding alternative schedules. First, by replacing “responsible agency” with “Administrator,” because “Administrator” is defined in 40 CFR 63.2 to include “a State that has been delegated the authority to implement the provisions of this part” (and the definition is incorporated by the Leather Finishing NESHAP). Second, by replacing “does not object” with “approves an alternative schedule” in order to require an affirmative action by the Administrator rather than affirmation by non-action.
Finally, we are proposing a correction to the title of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT. The current title is “Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63—Leather Finishing HAP Emission Limits for Determining the Allowable HAP Loss,” and the proposed title is “Table 2 to Subpart TTTT of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart TTTT.”
The EPA is proposing that all of the amendments being proposed in this action would be effective upon publication of the final rule. The tasks necessary for existing facilities to comply with these proposed amendments related to SSM periods would require no time or resources. No facilities will be subject to the requirement to submit reports electronically. Therefore, the EPA believes that existing facilities will be able to comply with these proposed amendments related to SSM periods and the use of the electronic reporting tool (ERT), as soon as the final rule is effective, which will be the date of publication of the final rule. The EPA is specifically soliciting comment and additional data on the burden of complying with these proposed amendments.
The EPA determined that four leather finishing operations are currently subject to the Leather Finishing NESHAP. This determination was based on reviews on various online databases and information sources, as well as permits, company Web sites, and other online sources as discussed in section 3.2 of the memorandum titled
The EPA estimates that annual organic HAP emissions from the four leather finishing operations subject to the rule are approximately 22.5 tpy. In this proposal, we recommend no new emission limits and require no additional controls; therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as a result of the proposed amendments.
The four leather finishing operations subject to this proposal will incur costs to review the final rule. Nationwide annual costs associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be a total of $705 for the initial year only. We believe that the four leather finishing operations which are known to be subject to this proposed rule can meet these proposed requirements without incurring additional capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated with this proposed rule are related to reviewing the rule. For further information on the proposed requirements for this rule, see section IV of this preamble. For further information on the costs associated with the proposed requirements of this rule, see the document titled
The total national cost to comply with this proposed rule is estimated to be $705 in 2016 dollars, which is a one-time cost that will be incurred in the first year following promulgation of the final amendments. There are no additional emission control costs or additional emission reductions associated with this rule. The estimated cost of $705 is comprised of equal costs incurred by each of the four affected facilities, with each facility estimated to incur one-time labor costs of approximately $176 in order to become familiar with the rule. These costs are not expected to result in business closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. No impacts on employment are expected given the minimal economic impact of the action on the affected firms. For further information on the economic impacts associated with the proposed requirements of this rule, see the memorandum titled
While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of HAP, this action, if finalized, will improve implementation of the Leather Finishing NESHAP by clarifying the rule requirements as discussed in sections IV.D.1 and 3 of this preamble. Also, by adding electronic reporting of test reports for any control devices used to comply with the rule will provide the benefits discussed in section IV.D.2 of this preamble, including assisting state and local agencies that elect to use ERT to track compliance of the rule.
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR Web site at
If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any “improved” data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR Web site, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194 (through the method described in the
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web site at
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1985.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Proposed costs are to review the final rule in the initial year. We are proposing no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements to the Leather Finishing Operations source category.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small businesses. The Agency has determined that each of the three small entities impacted by this action may experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of sales. Details of this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531- 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the leather finishing operations industry that would be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Leather Finishing Operations Sector Risk and Technology Review through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute. We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 24 and 311. The following VCS were identified as potentially acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule.
The VCS California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 310 “Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products” was identified as potentially applicable for EPA Method 311. The EPA decided not to use this VCS because the method is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 311 because it targets chemicals that are VOC and are not HAP.
Five VCS were identified as potentially applicable for EPA Method 24, as follows:
• ASTM D2369-01 “Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings”;
• ASTM D2697-86 (1998) “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings”;
• ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003) “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer”;
• ASTM D2111-95 (2000) “Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures”; and
• ASTM D1963-85 (1996) Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25°C.
The EPA is proposing not to use these methods. The use of ASTM D2369-01, ASTM D2697-86 (1998), ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), and ASTM D1963-85 (1996) would be impractical for this NESHAP because they address only a portion of Method 24 and do not address density, which is the only portion of Method 24 used for compliance with the Leather Finishing NESHAP. Further, though ASTM D2111-95 (2000), “Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,” provides an alternative method for measuring density, this version of the ASTM method has expired. A thorough summary of the search conducted and results are included in the memorandum titled
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this preamble and the technical report titled
As discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of the population close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and
The analysis indicates that the minority population living within 50 km (4,632,781 people, of which 25 percent are minority) and within 5 km (158,482 people, of which 13 percent are minority) of the four leather finishing operations facilities is less than the minority population found nationwide (38 percent). The proximity results indicate that the population percentage for the “Native American” demographic group within 5 km of leather finishing operations emissions is slightly greater than the corresponding nationwide percentage for that same demographic. The percentage of people ages 65 and older residing within 5 km of leather finishing operations (18 percent) is 4 percentage points higher than the corresponding nationwide percentage (14 percent). The other demographic groups included in the assessment within 5 km of leather finishing operations emissions were the same or lower than the corresponding nationwide percentages.
When examining the cancer risk levels of those exposed to emissions from the four leather finishing operations, we find that there are no people within a 50-km radius of modeled facilities exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million as a result of emissions from leather finishing operations. When examining the noncancer risk levels, we find that there are no people within a 50-km radius of modeled facilities exposed to a noncancer risk (in this analysis, reproductive HI) greater than 1 as a result of emissions from leather finishing operations.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions are low (below 2-in-1 million), the population exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million is relatively small (750 persons), and the rule maintains or increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further, the EPA believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) All affected sources must be in compliance with the requirements of this subpart at all times.
(b) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source.
(a) * * *
(2) If you use an emission control device, you must comply with 40 CFR part 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS) and collect the monitoring data as specified therein.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet the emission standards in § 63.5305. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.5420(b).
You must conduct performance tests after the installation of any emission control device that reduces HAP emissions and will be used to comply with the HAP emission requirements of this subpart. You must complete your performance tests not later than 60 calendar days before the end of the 12-month period used in the initial compliance determination.
(a) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(2) through (4) and the procedures of § 63.997(e)(1) and (2).
(b) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(b) You must submit a Deviation Notification Report for each compliance determination you make in which the compliance ratio exceeds 1.00, as determined under § 63.5330. Submit the deviation report by the fifteenth of the following month in which you determined the deviation from the compliance ratio. The Deviation Notification Report must include the items in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section:
(3) The 12-month period covered by the report and each type of leather product process operation performed during the 12-month period.
(4) The compliance ratio comprising the deviation. You may reduce the frequency of submittal of the Deviation Notification Report if the Administrator of these NESHAP approves an alternative schedule.
(5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the 12 months specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in excess of the allowable HAP loss. Calculate this estimate of excess emissions by subtracting the allowable HAP loss determined as specified in § 63.5340 from the actual HAP loss determined as specified in § 63.5335.
(6) The cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(c) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13 unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(5) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (
You must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section by the compliance date specified in § 63.5295.
(g) If you use an emission control device, you must keep records of monitoring data as specified at § 63.982(a)(2) (subpart SS).
(h) In the event that the compliance ratio exceeded 1.00, as determined under § 63.5330, keep a record of the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section for each exceedance.
(1) The 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as reported in § 63.5420(b).
(2) Each type of leather product process operation performed during the 12-month period in which the exceedance occurred, as reported in § 63.5420(b).
(3) Estimate of the quantity of HAP (in pounds) emitted during the 12 months specified in § 63.5420(b)(3) in excess of the allowable HAP loss, as reported in § 63.5420(b).
(4) Cause of the events that resulted in the source failing to meet an applicable standard (including unknown cause, if applicable), as reported in § 63.5420(b).
(5) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.5320(b), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(i) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
As required in § 63.5450, you must meet the appropriate NESHAP General Provision requirements in the following table:
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing notice and providing an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed amendments to its regulation on the Federal Home Loan Banks' (Banks) Affordable Housing Program (AHP or Program). The proposed amendments would provide the Banks additional authority to allocate their AHP funds; authorize the Banks to establish special competitive funds that target specific affordable housing needs in their districts; provide the Banks authority to design and implement their own project selection scoring criteria, subject to meeting certain FHFA-prescribed outcome requirements; remove the requirement for retention agreements for owner-occupied units; further align the project monitoring requirements with those of other federal government funding programs; clarify the provisions on remediating AHP noncompliance; clarify certain operational requirements; and streamline and reorganize the regulation.
Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2018.
You may submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AA83, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ted Wartell, Manager, Office of Housing and Community Investment, 202-649-3157,
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule. A list of FHFA's requests for comments on specific issues appears in Section V. Please identify the specific request for comment to which you are responding by its request number. Copies of all comments will be posted without change, and will include any personal information you provide such as your name, address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA website at
The Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires each Bank to establish an affordable housing program, the purpose of which is to enable Bank members to provide subsidies for long-term, low- and moderate-income, owner-occupied and affordable rental housing.
The AHP has played an important role in facilitating the Banks' support of their members' efforts to meet the affordable housing needs of their communities. Between 1990 and 2016, the Banks awarded approximately $5.4 billion in AHP subsidies to assist the financing of over 827,000 housing units through two programs—the Competitive Application Program and the Homeownership Set-Aside Program. From 1990 to 2016, the Banks awarded approximately $4.4 billion under the Competitive Application Program, assisting over 660,000 units, 71 percent of which were for very low-income households. From 1995 to 2016, the Banks awarded almost $1 billion under the Homeownership Set-Aside Program, assisting the financing of approximately 167,000 owner-occupied units.
FHFA and one of its predecessor agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board), have engaged in
• 1995—The rule authorized the Banks to establish Homeownership Set-Aside Programs to provide grants for households purchasing or rehabilitating homes. The Finance Board increased the maximum permissible annual funding allocation for these optional programs several times after 1995.
• 1997—The rule transferred approval authority over the AHP applications from the Finance Board to the Banks. The rule also substantially modified the scoring system, including establishing five regulatory priorities selected by the Finance Board, and allowing the Banks greater input in selecting scoring criteria and scoring points allocations based on their district housing needs. This included authority to select “Bank First District Priority” scoring criteria (from a list of specific housing needs identified in the regulation) and a “Bank Second District Priority” scoring criterion (a specific district housing need identified by the Bank), which together accounted for a maximum of 50 scoring points out of 100. The regulation also established specific initial and long-term project monitoring requirements.
• 2006—The rule provided the Banks with more discretion to establish project monitoring and other requirements and authorized the use of AHP subsidies with revolving loan funds and loan pools.
• 2009—The rule expanded the Banks' authority to target specific affordable housing needs in their districts by allowing the Banks to identify and include multiple district housing needs under their Bank Second District Priority scoring criterion.
The AHP regulation currently authorizes the Banks to establish and administer two programs: A mandatory Competitive Application Program; and an optional Homeownership Set-Aside Program. Each Bank generally is required to allocate annually at least 65 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to its Competitive Application Program.
The regulation also provides that each Bank may allocate annually up to the greater of $4.5 million or 35 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to fund its Homeownership Set-Aside Program. Under this program, members apply to the Banks for AHP subsidies, which are provided to low- or moderate-income homebuyers or homeowners for the purchase or rehabilitation of homes. In 2016, the Banks provided members a combined total of $85.5 million through their Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, which assisted 13,555 low- or moderate-income homebuyers or homeowners.
In accordance with FHFA's five-year regulatory review plan, FHFA published a Notice of Regulatory Review in the
In response to the Banks' recommendations, FHFA undertook a comprehensive review of the AHP regulation, including AHP issues on which FHFA had provided regulatory guidance. To further inform the review, FHFA held a number of discussions separately or jointly with the Banks' Community Investment Officers (CIOs), the Bank Presidents' Housing Committee, leadership of the Banks' Affordable Housing Advisory Councils, and other AHP stakeholders including Bank member institutions and representatives of several national and regional nonprofit housing organizations. The Banks and stakeholders uniformly expressed support for the AHP, viewing the program's affordable housing mission favorably and acknowledging its longstanding reputation as a well-managed program and the critical role it plays in affordable housing initiatives throughout the country.
At the same time, the CIOs and stakeholders offered a number of specific recommendations to improve the operation of the AHP. The recommendations were directed largely at (1) expanding the Banks' authority to allocate their AHP funds; (2) providing the Banks authority to devise their own project selection methods, including the use of non-competitive processes; (3) clarifying the requirements for determining a project's need for AHP subsidy; (4) aligning the project monitoring requirements with those of other major funding sources; (5) clarifying the Banks' authorities to resolve project noncompliance; (6) clarifying certain operational requirements; and (7) codifying FHFA regulatory guidance in the regulation. Although a majority of the CIOs and stakeholders expressed the view that the existing regulatory requirements for scoring AHP applications limit a Bank's ability to effectively target specific housing needs within its district, others stated that the project scoring system
After reviewing all of the specific recommendations, FHFA determined that a number of the recommended changes are already permissible under the current regulation and, therefore, do not require regulatory amendments. A number of other recommendations are clearly impermissible under the Bank Act and, therefore, cannot be authorized in the AHP regulation without statutory amendments. The remaining recommendations generally require revisions to the AHP regulation. FHFA analyzed these recommendations to determine whether they were appropriate from a policy standpoint and consistent with the statutory requirements. FHFA also considered the impact that adopting these recommendations would have on populations in greatest need of affordable housing assistance, the AHP's reputation as a well-managed program, and FHFA's ability to supervise, examine, and monitor the Banks' Programs. Based on FHFA's analyses of the recommendations and its review of the Programs, FHFA is proposing to amend the AHP regulation as further discussed below.
The proposed rule would authorize the Banks to develop and implement an “outcome-based approach” for administering their competitive application programs (the proposed General Fund and any Targeted Funds established by a Bank discussed below). This approach would differ significantly from the existing project selection scoring process, which requires Banks to allocate a majority of the points for scoring applications to several pre-determined housing needs priorities. Instead, the proposed rule would require each Bank to design and implement its own system to address specific housing needs in its district. However, the scoring system would need to result in the Bank awarding a majority of its AHP funds to certain regulatory priorities established by FHFA as well as the housing priorities specified in the Bank Act. The Banks would be required to support their reasons for choosing specific housing needs with empirical data in their Targeted Community Lending Plans.
FHFA is also proposing to provide the Banks additional flexibility to allocate their total annual AHP funds. The Banks would be authorized to allocate a portion of their total annual AHP funds to a maximum of three competitive Targeted Funds that enhance the Banks' ability to target specific affordable housing needs within their districts that are unmet, have proven difficult to address through the existing Competitive Application Program, or align with objectives identified in the strategic plans adopted by each Bank's board of directors. The amount each Bank could allocate to its Targeted Funds would be limited to a maximum of 40 percent of the Bank's total annual AHP funds. The Banks would be required to establish and support the need for the Targeted Funds in their Targeted Community Lending Plans.
In addition, the proposed rule would increase the percentage of total annual AHP funds that the Banks could allocate to their noncompetitive Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. The current regulation authorizes each Bank to allocate annually up to the greater of 35 percent of its total annual AHP funds or $4.5 million to fund its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. The proposed rule would increase the maximum allocation percentage to 40 percent, while retaining the alternate $4.5 million threshold. To account for high-cost areas and high rehabilitation costs, as well as housing price appreciation since the last time the set-aside percentage threshold was increased, the maximum set-aside grant that a Bank could provide to a household would increase from $15,000 to $22,000 and would be subject to annual increases according to FHFA's Housing Price Index.
FHFA is also proposing to further align the AHP project monitoring requirements with those of other government funding programs. The proposed rule would remove certain back-up documentation requirements for the initial monitoring of AHP projects that have received LIHTC funding. It would also remove certain back-up documentation requirements for initial and long-term monitoring of AHP projects that have received funding under other federal government programs, which would be specified in FHFA guidance.
FHFA is also proposing to clarify the responsibilities of the various parties in the event of AHP noncompliance.
To provide greater clarity for users of the AHP regulation and to take into account the proposed new provisions, the proposed rule would reorganize the current regulation. Existing and new regulatory sections would be grouped under new Subpart headings according to similar subject matter, which would result in renumbering of most sections of the current regulation. In addition, the numbering of the sections would not be consecutive from Subpart to Subpart in order to reserve room within Subparts for the addition of new sections in the future, as necessary. Specific organizational changes are discussed below under the applicable regulatory amendments.
Proposed § 1291.1 would retain most of the definitions currently in § 1291.1. The proposed rule would revise some of the definitions and add definitions, which are discussed below in the context of the related regulatory amendments.
In addition, the proposed rule would make the following technical changes:
• A definition of “AHP” would be added, which means the Affordable Housing Program required to be established by the Banks pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1430(j) and this part.
• The definition of “Homeownership Set-Aside Program” would include a reference that establishment of such a program is in the Bank's discretion and is a noncompetitive program.
• The definition of “net earnings of a Bank” would be revised by removing the requirement to deduct the Bank's annual contribution to the Resolution Funding Corporation, as the Banks are no longer required to make annual contributions to the Resolution Funding Corporation.
• In the definition of “rental project,” the term “manufactured housing” would be changed to “manufactured housing communities,” which more accurately describes this type of housing in the context of rental projects.
• References to the “competitive application program” would be changed to the General Fund and any Targeted Funds established by the Bank. References to the “homeownership set-aside programs” would be capitalized and would highlight that they are discretionary and noncompetitive.
Consistent with current § 1291.2(a), proposed § 1291.10(a) would contain the Bank Act requirement that each Bank contribute annually to its AHP 10 percent of its net income for the preceding year, subject to a minimum annual combined contribution by all of the Banks of $100 million.
Existing § 1291.11 on the temporary suspension of AHP contributions would not be changed.
Proposed § 1291.12 would revise existing § 1291.2(b) governing the required and permissible allocations of the Banks' required annual AHP contributions. Section 1291.2(b)(1) currently requires each Bank to allocate annually to its Competitive Application Program that portion of its required annual AHP contribution that is not set aside by the Bank to fund Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. Section 1291.2(b)(2) provides that each Bank may allocate annually, in the aggregate, up to the greater of $4.5 million or 35 percent of its annual required AHP contribution to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. Therefore, a Bank generally is required to allocate at least 65 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to its Competitive Application Program depending on the amount of AHP funds it allocates, if any, to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.
The proposed rule would revise the required and permissible annual maximum AHP funding allocations as follows:
(1) General Fund—A Bank must allocate annually at least 50 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to a General Fund (a mandatory competitive application program but with significant changes from the current Competitive Application Program, as further discussed below);
(2) Homeownership Set-Aside Programs—A Bank may allocate annually, in the aggregate, up to the greater of $4.5 million or 40 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs (the same optional Homeownership Set-Aside Programs as in the current regulation but with proposed changes discussed below);
(3) Targeted Funds—A Bank may allocate annually, in the aggregate, up to 40 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to a maximum of three Targeted Funds (a new type of optional competitive application program discussed below).
If a Bank chooses not to establish Homeownership Set-Aside Programs or Targeted Funds in a given year, it would allocate 100 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to its General Fund. If a Bank chooses to allocate the maximum 40 percent to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, it could allocate up to 10 percent for Targeted Funds (after allocating the required 50 percent for the General Fund). If a Bank chooses to allocate the maximum 40 percent to Targeted Funds, it could allocate up to 10 percent for Homeownership Set-Aside Programs (after allocating the required 50 percent for the General Fund).
The proposed rule would provide that a Bank's board of directors may not delegate to a committee of the board, Bank officers, or other Bank employees the responsibility for adopting the policies for its General Fund and any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs established by the Bank. The purpose of this provision is to encourage increased engagement in the AHP and increased integration of the Banks' low-income housing and community development activities and issues, as well as Advisory Council input, into the overall strategic planning of the Bank. FHFA anticipates the board committee's work to remain largely the same as it is currently, but also for the full board to have more engagement with the board committee's recommendations. The full board could still delegate limited responsibilities to the board committee for non-strategic types of AHP issues that a board committee is well suited to address within the parameters of its delegation of authority, such as project modification requests for AHP subsidy increases.
The reasons for the proposed AHP funding allocations are discussed below.
The Homeowner Set-Aside Programs have helped expand homeownership opportunities for very low-, and low- or moderate-income households since 1995. From 1995 through 2016, the programs provided approximately $953 million in grants, supporting approximately 167,000 households. In 2016, the 11 Banks, in the aggregate, allocated approximately 27 percent of their total annual required AHP contributions to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. A number of Banks consistently allocate the maximum permissible amount of 35 percent or $4.5 million. For example, in 2016, four Banks allocated 35 percent, and one Bank allocated $4.5 million. In 2015, six Banks allocated the maximum permissible amount. FHFA considered whether to eliminate or raise the maximum permissible allocation amounts because the demand for set-aside funds has far exceeded the amount the Banks are currently authorized to allocate to these programs.
Authorizing the Banks to allocate more funds to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs would enable the Banks and their members to meet more of the demand for set-aside funds and to provide more assistance to low- or moderate-income homebuyers and homeowners, including first-time homebuyers, than occurs under the Competitive Application Program. The current regulation allows Banks to establish more than one Homeownership Set-Aside Program. A number of Banks establish multiple Homeownership Set-Aside Programs each year to address the homeownership needs of different populations, such as military veterans or disaster victims. The proposed changes to the regulation would enable the Banks to serve even more low- or moderate-income homebuyers and homeowners.
The Homeownership Set-Aside Programs not only assist low- or moderate-income households by providing grants for home purchase or rehabilitation, but assist Bank members by providing them a way to access a wider customer base and originate new mortgages for low- or moderate-income households. Member participation in the program can result in new potential household customers and increased goodwill for Bank members. Members' participation in the AHP, including the Homeownership Set-Aside Program, also enables them to receive favorable consideration under the federal Community Reinvestment Act. Increasing the maximum permissible percentage allocation could result in more opportunities for members to fulfill those obligations.
In addition, the lack of a competitive scoring process and minimal monitoring requirements at subsidy disbursement make the Homeownership Set-Aside Programs easy to administer and cost-effective. Further, no long-term monitoring is required because the AHP-assisted households currently are only subject to five-year retention agreements governing the sale or refinancing of the home, although determining and managing the repayments of AHP subsidies by households who sell or refinance their homes during the five-year period entails some administrative responsibilities on the Banks and members. As discussed below, FHFA is proposing to remove the requirement for retention agreements on owner-occupied units.
Increasing the maximum percentage amount for the Homeownership Set-Aside Program would enable the Banks to allocate less funds to their Competitive Application Programs, resulting potentially in less funding of rental projects, which are funded under those programs. However, in light of the significant demand for set-aside funds, which exceeds the current maximum percentage amount, FHFA believes that increasing this amount would be a reasonable approach to address the demand. As noted above, one of the main goals of the proposed rule is to enhance the Banks' ability to target specific housing needs in their districts through the AHP. Each Bank would weigh the specific homeownership and rental housing needs in its district and determine what the appropriate relative funding allocations should be for those needs under its AHP.
FHFA is not proposing to remove the maximum permissible allocation limits for the Homeownership Set-Aside Program because this could result in the Banks allocating all of their annual AHP funds to the Homeownership Set-Aside Program, which would be contrary to the statutory intent that both homeownership and rental projects be funded. The proposed rule would continue to require that the Banks allocate the majority of their total annual AHP funds (at least 60 percent under the proposed rule) to competitive application programs—the proposed General Fund and any Targeted Funds, which are likely to be targeted to more types of housing needs including rental housing. This may ensure that a significant percentage of AHP funds continue to support rental projects.
FHFA is proposing to retain the existing alternative maximum allocation amount of $4.5 million because it has enabled smaller Banks, as well as some larger Banks with lower earnings, to provide more funds than would be permissible under the maximum percentage limit to their Homeownership Set-Aside Programs to address district housing needs. For these Banks, $4.5 million may be greater than 35 or 40 percent. FHFA analyzed the impact that a proposed increase from 35 to 40 percent would have on each Bank, using each Bank's annual total AHP funding allocations for 2016 and 2017, to determine whether revisions to the $4.5 million limit would be necessary in conjunction with the percentage increase. FHFA found that the proposed increase from 35 to 40 percent would not have altered the Banks' need for, or use of, the $4.5 million maximum during those two years. Accordingly, FHFA is not proposing an increase in the $4.5 million maximum.
In addition, the proposed rule would make a substantive revision to the one-third allocation requirement to allow the Banks to include owner-occupied rehabilitation as a permissible use within the one-third allocation. FHFA considered whether to eliminate the one-third first-time homebuyer allocation requirement, which would enable Banks, in their discretion, to provide additional set-aside funds to households for owner-occupied rehabilitation. While the Banks currently may establish specific Homeownership Set-Aside Programs for owner-occupied rehabilitation using some or all of the remaining two-thirds set-aside funding allocation, eliminating the one-third first-time homebuyer allocation would enable allocation of even more set-aside funds for owner-occupied rehabilitation. A substantial need for owner-occupied rehabilitation funds exists in many Bank districts, and demand is likely to increase as the country's population ages.
While FHFA recognizes the substantial need for more funds for owner-occupied rehabilitation for low- or moderate-income households, it is also important that all Banks continue to support the entry of first-time homebuyers into the homeownership market. The national homeownership rate has fallen from its peak of 69.2 percent at the end of 2004 to 63.9 percent as of September 30, 2017.
Accordingly, rather than eliminating the one-third first-time homebuyer allocation requirement, the proposed rule would expand the scope of the requirement to include households for owner-occupied rehabilitation. While the proposed change could allow a Bank to allocate its entire one-third allocation to households for owner-occupied rehabilitation, FHFA believes this is highly unlikely in light of the Banks' record of allocating most of their set-aside funds to first-time homebuyers. Notably, in 2016, the Banks allocated only 10 percent of their total set-aside funds for owner-occupied rehabilitation. The proposed change could encourage Banks to increase their set-aside funding allocations for owner-occupied rehabilitation, while continuing their support for first-time homebuyers.
The proposed rule would also provide that a Bank's board of directors may not delegate to a committee of the board the responsibility for adopting its Homeownership Set-Aside Program policies, for the reasons discussed earlier.
Permitting the Banks to establish Targeted Funds would help address challenges the Banks experience when trying to target specific affordable housing needs within their districts, especially in a single AHP funding period. Banks report that the existing regulatory scoring requirements can affect their efforts to fully address affordable housing needs within their districts. For example, Banks have indicated that they would like greater ability to target the affordable housing needs of specific geographic areas or populations, or to act in response to a disaster. The use of Targeted Funds focused on a specific geographic area or population or in response to a disaster could serve this purpose.
FHFA's regulations require each Bank's board of directors to adopt a strategic business plan that describes how its business activities will achieve its mission. The regulations require that each plan describe how the Bank will maximize activities that further the Bank's housing finance and community lending mission.
The current regulation already provides the Banks a degree of flexibility to address multiple housing priorities within a given AHP funding period. The Banks can allocate up to 50 points out of a total of 100 under the Bank First and Second District Priorities to emphasize multiple housing needs in their districts. However, some Banks have indicated that they find it difficult to allocate points, test, adjust, and balance the different scoring criteria in a manner that enables them to award subsidies to multiple housing priorities in the same funding period. Establishing a Targeted Fund with a dedicated funding allocation, for example, to a particular housing need, would guarantee that projects serving that housing need receive awards pursuant to the competitive process under that Fund, while other projects would receive awards under the competitive General Fund, thereby serving multiple housing needs in the same funding period.
FHFA believes that the use of Targeted Funds would be appropriate provided they are operated pursuant to a competitive scoring process to ensure a transparent and objective process for awarding funds. FHFA also believes that limitations should be imposed on the size of the Targeted Funds to ensure that funds continue to be available to address a broad spectrum of affordable housing needs within each district under the General Fund. Accordingly, the proposed rule would authorize each Bank to allocate annually up to 40 percent of its total annual AHP funds to Targeted Funds subject to a phase-in period.
FHFA is mindful that the use of Targeted Funds could introduce new risks to the Banks given the targeted nature of each Fund. Proposed § 1291.20(c)(1) would require the Banks adopt and implement controls for ensuring that each Targeted Fund is designed to receive sufficient numbers of applicants for the amount of AHP funds allocated to the Targeted Fund to facilitate a genuinely competitive scoring process so that specific project sponsors or members are not specially advantaged. To further address the potential new risks, proposed § 1291.20(b) would authorize each Bank to establish initially only one Targeted Fund, but would enable the Bank to increase the number of its Targeted Funds to a maximum of three pursuant to a phase-in period. In addition, as provided in proposed § 1291.13(a) and (b), a Bank would not be allowed to establish or administer a Targeted Fund unless at least 12 months have passed since the publication of the Targeted Community Lending Plan and the Bank identifies in the Plan the affordable housing needs to be addressed by that Targeted Fund. This advance notice would help ensure that the Targeted Fund is designed in an open and objective manner to generate sufficient interest for holding a competitive scoring funding round. The advance notice also may serve to encourage potential sponsors to consider developing projects that address the affordable housing needs set by the Targeted Fund and submit applications to the Fund.
Although FHFA is not proposing that the Banks' Targeted Community Lending Plans be subject to approval by FHFA, FHFA may request that the Banks submit an advance copy to FHFA before releasing it to the public. This would provide FHFA an opportunity to review the Plans and provide comments as needed, particularly in the initial years of the Funds. Proposed § 1290.6(c) would also require that the Targeted Community Lending Plans be published on the Banks' public websites, consistent with current practice at most Banks.
The Banks would identify in their Targeted Community Lending Plans the specific affordable housing needs, supported by empirical data, that the Targeted Funds will address. The Banks' AHP Implementation Plans would describe how the Targeted Funds will address these housing needs
FHFA specifically requests comments on the benefits and risks of allowing the Banks to establish Targeted Funds. FHFA also requests comments on whether the proposed allocation of 40 percent of total annual AHP funds to Targeted Funds is an appropriate percentage, or whether the percentage should be higher or lower.
In addition, the proposed rule would amend the Community Support regulation to provide that a Bank's board of directors may not delegate to a committee of the board, Bank officers, or other Bank employees the responsibility to adopt or amend the Targeted Community Lending Plan as previously discussed.
The proposed rule would also make technical changes to the language in § 1290.6(a)(5) to clarify the Plan requirements.
The proposed changes discussed above would ensure that the Targeted Community Lending Plans are results-oriented and useful to FHFA in assessing the Banks' progress towards addressing the housing challenges of low- or moderate-income households in their districts. The proposed changes would increase the emphasis on accountability and results in the Targeted Community Lending Plans.
FHFA specifically requests comments on the benefits of the proposed expansion of the contents of the Targeted Community Lending Plans and their linkage to the AHP Implementation Plans. In addition, FHFA requests comments on whether the proposed expansion of the contents of the Targeted Community Lending Plans will impede the Banks' ability to respond to disasters through the AHP.
The current provisions addressing the membership and duties of the Banks'
Current § 1291.9 governing the AHP contractual agreements that must be in place between the Banks and members, and between the members and project sponsors or project owners, would move to proposed § 1291.15. The proposed rule would make a number of changes and clarifications to the provisions in this section, as discussed below.
To address the possibility of such noncompliance by LIHTC projects, proposed § 1291.15(a)(5)(ii) would require the members' AHP agreements with LIHTC project sponsors to include a provision requiring the sponsors to agree to provide prompt written notice to the Bank if the project is in noncompliance with the LIHTC income-targeting or rent requirements at any time during the AHP 15-year retention period. A corresponding requirement that the Bank review such LIHTC project noncompliance notices received from project sponsors during the AHP retention period would be included in proposed § 1291.50(c)(1)(ii).
FHFA specifically requests comments on the practicality of this requirement, and whether it should also be required of project sponsors in the event of noncompliance by projects with the income-targeting or rent requirements of the government housing programs discussed under Monitoring below.
The owner-occupied retention agreement provides, specifically, that in the event of a sale or refinancing of the home by the AHP-assisted household during the five-year retention period, an amount equal to a pro rata share of the AHP subsidy that financed the purchase or rehabilitation of the unit, reduced for every year the household owned the unit, shall be repaid by the household to the Bank from any net gain realized upon the sale or refinancing, unless:
(A) The unit was assisted with a permanent mortgage loan funded by an AHP subsidized advance;
(B) the unit is sold to a very low-, or low- or moderate-income household; or
(C) following a refinancing, the unit continues to be subject to a deed restriction or other legally enforceable retention agreement or mechanism described in this paragraph.
The purpose of the retention agreement is to discourage “flipping” of the home by requiring households to repay AHP subsidy if they sell the home during the AHP retention period, unless one of the exceptions applies. The AHP provides subsidies which enable very low- and low- or moderate-income households to purchase or rehabilitate their homes and reap the benefits of wealth creation from homeownership. The AHP subsidy is not intended to be used by investors or landlords to purchase or rehabilitate and quickly sell homes to take advantage of rapidly appreciating housing prices in a neighborhood. The AHP retention agreement requirement is consistent with the retention agreement requirements of other government housing programs, such as HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), for households receiving subsidy for purchasing or rehabilitating owner-occupied units.
FHFA recognizes the moral hazard risk that may be associated with using subsidy intended to provide housing to low- or moderate-income households to flip properties. However, homes purchased by AHP-assisted households, by virtue of their low prices, are not typically located in neighborhoods with rapidly appreciating housing prices that would encourage flipping, especially given the low amount of AHP subsidy provided to the households—averaging $6,311 per household in 2016—although exceptions may exist. Most AHP-assisted households do not sell their homes during the five-year retention period and, if they do, they usually sell to another low- or moderate-income household or have no net gain, so the retention agreement does not apply in most situations, making its value questionable. Moreover, the underlying policy of the AHP has always been that the purpose of the AHP subsidy is to enable low- or moderate-income households to receive the benefits of homeownership including appreciation in the value of their homes and, thus, to minimize any AHP subsidy repayments. Repayments of AHP subsidy may be a financial burden on the households.
The Banks have also cited the administrative burdens on themselves and their members of having to obtain and track repayments of generally very small amounts of subsidy, obtaining the documentation to calculate whether there is a “net gain” on the sale, and determining whether the subsequent purchaser is a low- or moderate-income household. In particular, the Banks have noted the complications of trying to determine the net gain where a household used the AHP subsidy to rehabilitate its home without an accompanying purchase.
These considerations appear to outweigh the potential for deterring rare instances of flipping. Accordingly, FHFA is proposing to eliminate the retention agreement requirement for owner-occupied units. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether a retention agreement of some duration is necessary or desirable to ensure that AHP funds are being used for the statutorily-intended purposes and whether there are viable ways to deter potential flipping and address moral hazard risks other than through retention agreements (
If, based on the comments received and other relevant factors, FHFA decides to retain an owner-occupied retention agreement requirement in the final rule, FHFA is raising a number of issues below for consideration.
FHFA reviewed the subsidy repayment requirements of other government housing programs and, in particular, HUD's HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME). One approach under this program calculates net proceeds as the sales price minus outstanding superior debt and seller paid costs, with the household recovering its entire investment first from the net proceeds, the Bank then recovering the subsidy on a pro rata basis, and any remaining net proceeds returned to the household. FHFA requests comments on the merits and disadvantages of this approach and the net gain approach discussed above from the standpoint of the AHP-assisted households and the Banks, and whether there are other subsidy repayment approaches FHFA should consider if a retention agreement requirement is retained in the final rule.
FHFA requests comments on what proxies would be reasonable for assuming a subsequent purchaser's income, including the following: Certification from the subsequent purchaser or a third party that the subsequent purchaser's income is at or below the low- or moderate-income limit; evidence that the subsequent purchaser is receiving direct homebuyer assistance from another government program with household income targeting requirements substantially equivalent to those of the AHP; purchase price of the AHP-assisted unit is less than the median home price in the area; the AHP-assisted unit is located in a census tract or block group where at least 51 percent of the households are low- or moderate-income; or Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or other underwriting standards indicate that the income required to purchase the AHP-assisted unit at the purchase price is low- or moderate-income.
As discussed above, maintaining a subsidy repayment requirement in the retention agreement could help deter potential, but rare, flipping during the retention period. Setting a
In addition, the proposed rule would add a requirement in the Agreements section at proposed § 1291.15(b)(2) that the Bank's AHP subsidy application or other related form include project sponsor qualifications criteria that evaluate the ability of the project sponsor (including all affiliates and team members such as the general contractor) to perform the responsibilities committed to in the AHP application. The project sponsor qualifications section of the form would be required to include a requirement for the project sponsor to provide certifications or respond to specific questions about whether the project sponsor (and affiliates and team members such as the general contractor) have engaged in misconduct as defined and imputed in FHFA's Suspended Counterparty Program regulation,
The purpose of these requirements is to enable a Bank to identify any misconduct by the project sponsor so that the Bank can determine whether it should accept the AHP application or approve requests from the sponsor for disbursement of AHP subsidy. The proposed rule would provide that the project sponsor's affiliates and team members such as the general contractor must also meet the project sponsor qualification requirements in order for the project sponsor to be eligible for AHP subsidy.
The Suspended Counterparty Program regulation defines “covered misconduct” generally to mean a conviction or administrative sanction imposed by a federal agency involving fraud, embezzlement, theft, conversion, forgery, bribery, perjury, making false statements or claims, tax evasion, obstruction of justice, or any similar offense, in connection with a mortgage, mortgage business, mortgage securities, or other lending product. For AHP project sponsor qualifications purposes, a Bank may choose to define “covered misconduct” more broadly to also include, for example, convictions or administrative sanctions imposed by a state agency, pending investigations, noncompliance by the project sponsor (and affiliates and team members such as the general contractor) with other funders' requirements, pending claims, pending litigation, settlements of criminal or administrative charges, or criminal activity involving financial transactions more generally.
Current § 1291.10 addressing conflicts of interest by Bank directors, Bank employees and Advisory Council members would move unchanged to proposed § 1291.16.
To address the risks of Targeted Funds, given their targeted nature, the proposed rule would include phase-in requirements for the Funds. Specifically, unless otherwise directed by FHFA, a Bank would be permitted to establish:
(1) One Targeted Fund;
(2) Two Targeted Funds to be administered concurrently, provided that the Bank administered at least one Targeted Fund in any preceding year; or
(3) Three Targeted Funds to be administered concurrently, provided that the Bank administered at least two Targeted Funds in any preceding year.
In addition, as discussed under the funding allocation provisions in proposed § 1291.12(c)(1) above, the allocations to Targeted Funds would be subject to phase-in requirements.
In addition, as under the current regulation, a Bank would not be authorized to adopt additional eligibility requirements for the General Fund and any Targeted Funds established by the Bank except as specifically authorized in the regulation.
The funding period and application process requirements in existing § 1291.5(b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(4) would move unchanged to proposed § 1291.22.
FHFA considered allowing occupied projects to satisfy income targeting commitments at initial occupancy as with unoccupied projects. This change would increase the chances of occupied projects scoring successfully under the AHP where they target lower incomes than the current income mix of the occupants in the project. This could encourage more AHP subsidy awards for preservation of affordable rental housing through purchase or rehabilitation, which is an important housing priority in many areas. It would also account for tenant moves during the renovation process and the fact that new residents at different income levels may occupy the project at initial occupancy, when the rehabilitation is complete.
At the same time, FHFA is concerned that such a change could encourage displacement of current occupants whose incomes exceed those committed to in the approved AHP application because the project sponsor must meet its income targeting commitments. To mitigate this concern, proposed § 1291.23(a)(2)(ii) would provide that, in order for the project to satisfy the income targeting commitments at initial occupancy, the project must have a relocation plan for those occupants not meeting the income targeting commitments that is approved by one of the project's primary funders. In the absence of a relocation plan, the households in the project must satisfy the income targeting commitments at the time of AHP application, as required in the current regulation.
FHFA specifically requests comments on how to encourage preservation of rental projects through the AHP while discouraging displacement of current occupants with higher incomes, including whether the proposed requirement for a relocation plan approved by the primary funder is reasonable.
Proposed § 1291.24(b)(4) would add that, consistent with current practice, capitalized reserves, periodic deposits to reserve accounts, operating expenses, and supportive services expenses are not eligible uses of AHP subsidy.
Some stakeholders have pointed to the regulatory language, as well as preamble language from an earlier AHP rulemaking, to support their contention that, for rental projects, the Banks are only required to review the project's development budget and not its operating pro forma in determining its need for AHP subsidy. However, long-standing policy and practice has been that the Banks review both the project
As a policy matter, it is important for the Banks to review a rental project's operating pro forma as well as its development budget. The Bank must review the project's development budget to confirm a funding gap between the sources and uses of funds. The Bank must review the project's operating pro forma to assess the reasonableness of cash flow. A debt coverage ratio or cash flow amount that exceeds the Bank's feasibility standards can indicate that the project does not need the full amount of AHP subsidy requested, especially in cases where the primary funder's requirements or special project circumstances do not explain or justify the excess.
The following discussion clarifies how the Banks should evaluate under the proposed rule that a project's cash flow and costs are reasonable, and how the Banks should perform the need for subsidy analysis in cases where (1) capitalized reserves exceed a Bank's project cost guidelines; (2) supportive services are provided; and (3) the cash flow or debt coverage ratio exceeds a Bank's project cost guidelines.
When capitalized reserves exceed the project cost guidelines established by a Bank, the Bank must evaluate the reasonableness of these reserves. Such analysis includes assessing whether the capitalized reserves are required by the project's primary funders. However, the Bank has the discretion to determine that the reserves are not reasonable even if they are required or permitted by a project's primary funders.
In very rare instances with non-LIHTC projects, a Bank may allow a project to exceed the Bank's project cost guidelines for capitalized reserves even when the primary funders do not require additional reserves. For LIHTC projects, the limited partnership agreement typically serves as the final determinant on the maximum allowable amount of capitalized reserves.
When a project expects to pay for supportive services expenses from cash flow, the supportive services budget should indicate project cash flow as the income source. A Bank must review the supportive services budget to determine whether there is adequate income to pay for the supportive services.
In summary, FHFA proposes to clarify in the regulation that the Banks must base the need for AHP subsidy determination for rental projects on both the project's development budget and its operating pro forma. This will help ensure that projects will not be over-subsidized through AHP funds.
Some stakeholders requested that FHFA remove this provision, citing the complexity of the calculation. Others suggested that the sponsors should be treated like revolving loan funds under the regulation, as their financing model essentially operates as a revolving loan fund. As further discussed below under proposed § 1291.29, FHFA is considering undertaking a separate rulemaking for revolving loan funds, which could include sponsor-provided permanent financing. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether the current AHP requirements for sponsor-provided permanent financing are reasonable, including whether the sponsors have a need for AHP subsidy in light of their particular financing model, and whether the current method in the regulation for determining their need for AHP subsidy understates or overstates the amount of AHP subsidy needed. FHFA also requests comments on whether sponsors using this financing model should be considered revolving loan funds and, if so, whether they should be subject to current or different AHP revolving loan fund requirements.
The proposed rule would further provide that the maximum AHP subsidy limit per project or per project unit may differ for each Fund. This is intended to allow the Banks to create maximum subsidy limits for each Fund that address the specific characteristics of project applicants for that Fund. For instance, a Bank may want to establish a higher maximum subsidy limit per project for a Targeted Fund focused on certain geographies or development types in light of differences in housing development costs, such as high-cost areas or projects where most units contain three or more bedrooms to accommodate larger households.
The Bank's scoring methodology may be different for each Fund. The Bank's scoring criteria for each Fund must be justified in the Bank's Targeted Community Lending Plan and specified in its AHP Implementation Plan. The Bank would need to design its scoring criteria and point allocations to ensure that the Bank will meet the outcome requirements for the statutory and regulatory priorities under proposed § 1291.48, as further discussed below. Each scoring methodology may include scoring criteria addressing specific affordable housing needs in the Bank's district (Bank district priorities) that differ from the affordable housing needs specified under the statutory and regulatory priorities, as long as the outcome requirements specified in proposed § 1291.48 are achieved.
FHFA considered whether to allow the Banks complete discretion to determine how to allocate and award their AHP funds by removing the scoring criteria for the current Competitive Application Program and the current minimum and maximum AHP funding allocation requirements for that program and the Homeownership Set-Aside Program. While such discretion might enable the Banks to better target specific affordable housing needs in their districts, it is not included in the proposed rule for several reasons.
First, it would allow a Bank to allocate and approve all of its AHP funds through noncompetitive processes. In contrast, the current regulation requires each Bank generally to award at least 65 percent of its total AHP funds through the Competitive Application Program,
As discussed above under the scoring tie-breaker policies in proposed § 1291.25(d), and consistent with current FHFA guidance to the Banks, where there is insufficient AHP subsidy to approve all tied applications, the Bank must approve a tied application as an alternate if it does not prevail under the scoring tie-breaker methodology, or if it is tied with another application but requested more subsidy than the amount of AHP funds that remain to be awarded.
FHFA specifically requests comments on possible approaches for re-ranking applications to meet the outcome requirements while at the same time maximizing the extent to which the highest scoring applications are approved.
The provisions for modifications of approved AHP applications would be moved from current § 1291.5(f) to proposed § 1291.27, and would include a number of clarifying and other changes.
The proposed rule would also make technical changes to the language to clarify any ambiguity about the requirement that requests for subsidy increase modifications must also meet the requirements for approval in paragraph (a) of this section.
The procedures for AHP funding would carry over from existing § 1291.5(g) to proposed § 1291.28 with two proposed changes.
Current § 1291.5(c)(13) addressing the requirements for lending and re-lending of AHP direct subsidies by revolving loan funds would move to proposed § 1291.29, with proposed changes related to the proposed elimination of the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement and other issues discussed below.
The authority for the Banks to provide AHP direct subsidies to revolving loan funds for purposes of lending and re-lending was added in the AHP regulation in 2006. The revolving loan fund provisions were designed for distinct projects in specific locations, or for pipelines of expected projects meeting specific criteria that the revolving loan fund anticipates funding and that would be specified in its AHP application. Under the regulation, the revolving loan fund may be scored on the specific criteria it establishes in its AHP application for its pipeline of projects, without having to actually identify specific projects in the AHP application.
These types of revolving loan funds that were expected to be able to participate in the AHP either no longer exist or have evolved into different financing models. Current revolving loan funds are financing programs that utilize interest and principal payments on current loans to make new loans. The sources and uses of revolving loan funds are typically hypothetical in nature, based on future lending expectations, and the prospective households requiring assistance are yet to be determined. Revolving loan funds have faced challenges meeting certain AHP eligibility requirements, such as the subsidy repayment requirement under the five-year owner-occupied retention agreement, and receiving sufficient numbers of points under certain scoring criteria to receive an AHP award for purposes of lending and re-lending the grant. Revolving loan funds have received AHP grants for use as a one-time pass-through to identified projects, not for lending and re-lending of the subsidy to such projects or anticipated future projects.
To address these challenges, FHFA is considering undertaking a separate rulemaking on the current AHP revolving loan funds provisions. FHFA requests comments on the current AHP revolving loan fund provisions and how the financing mechanisms of revolving loan funds could be used successfully with AHP subsidies. FHFA specifically requests comments on why certain AHP scoring criteria have been difficult to meet, how the AHP retention periods could be satisfied, how AHP subsidy would be repaid in the event of project noncompliance, and how the revolving loan fund can demonstrate a need for the AHP subsidy. FHFA also requests comments on whether and how the proposed outcome requirements for the statutory and regulatory priorities discussed under proposed § 1291.48 might facilitate use of AHP subsidies by revolving loan funds.
The proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for retention agreements for all owner-occupied units, including those funded by revolving loan funds. FHFA specifically requests comments on the potential positive or negative impacts of eliminating the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement for revolving loan funds.
Current § 1291.5(c)(14) addressing the requirements for use of AHP subsidies in loan pools would move to proposed § 1291.30, with the proposed change to remove the requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements in current paragraph § 1291.5(c)(14)(iii).
The authority for the Banks to provide AHP subsidy to loan pools was added in the AHP regulation in 2006. The regulation establishes specific conditions under which a Bank may provide AHP subsidies under its Competitive Application Program for the origination of first mortgage loans or rehabilitation loans with subsidized interest rates to AHP-eligible households through a purchase commitment by an entity that will purchase and pool the loans.
FHFA is not aware that any loan pools meeting these conditions have applied for AHP subsidy since the regulatory authority was added in 2006. FHFA is also unaware of any loan pools of this type currently existing in the housing market. Therefore, FHFA is considering removing the loan pool provisions from the regulation. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether there are loan pools currently operating in the market that meet the conditions in the regulation, how the loan pools are addressing current housing market needs, and the potential positive or negative impacts of eliminating the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement for loan pools.
The current provision addressing Bank establishment of Homeownership Set-Aside Programs would move from § 1291.6(a) to proposed § 1291.40. The proposed rule would emphasize that these programs are optional by adding that a Bank may establish such programs “in its discretion.” The proposed rule would also include a requirement that a Bank's justifications for establishing such programs be included in its Targeted Community Lending Plan, as provided in proposed § 1291.13(a).
The proposed rule would move the current provision on applications from members unchanged from § 1291.6(b) to proposed § 1291.41.
The provisions in current § 1291.6(c) on eligibility requirements would move to proposed § 1291.42, with several proposed changes discussed below.
The purpose of the proposed increase in the subsidy limit is to respond to increases in the costs associated with buying or rehabilitating homes in high cost areas, as well as the high costs of certain types of rehabilitation generally. It would also bring the subsidy limit in line with changes in the HPI since 2002, when the $15,000 subsidy limit was established in the regulation. For example, the HPI shows that $15,000 in January 2002 has approximately the same buying power as $21,500 today.
Many of the Banks have set their subsidy limits below $15,000, with a number of Banks at $5,000. In 2016, the average set-aside grant per household was $6,311. Several stakeholders recommended that FHFA increase the subsidy limit due to increases in the costs associated with buying or rehabilitating homes in high cost areas, which in some areas are substantially higher than the rest of the country. Banks located in high cost areas are more likely to take advantage of a higher subsidy limit because of the higher costs in their districts.
Increasing the subsidy limit could also have a significant impact on housing rehabilitation in all districts. The demand for rehabilitation is likely to increase as the country's population ages.
Bank adoption of the proposed higher subsidy limit could result in fewer households receiving set-aside subsidies, but Banks could choose to offset this by increasing the maximum amount of AHP funds they allocate to their set-aside programs from 35 to 40 percent, as would be permitted under the proposed rule. In addition, most Banks have established subsidy limits below the current $15,000 limit. Thus, FHFA believes that an increase in the subsidy limit to $22,000 is not likely to result in a significant overall reduction in the number of households assisted by the Banks under their set-aside programs.
The proposed rule would provide that the $22,000 subsidy limit would be subject to an automatic annual upward adjustment only, in accordance with the HPI. As noted above, the current $15,000 subsidy limit was established in the regulation in 2002. The regulation does not provide for an automatic HPI adjustment. Increasing the subsidy limit to $22,000 would reflect increases in the HPI since that time. Rather than periodically revise the subsidy limit by regulation to account for future housing price increases, the proposed rule would provide for automatic HPI upward adjustments to the subsidy limit. The subsidy limit would adjust upward, but not downward, in response to changes in the HPI. In the event of a decrease in the HPI, the subsidy limit would remain at its then-current level until the HPI increased above the subsidy limit, at which point the subsidy limit would adjust to that higher level. FHFA would notify the Banks annually of the maximum subsidy amount based on the HPI.
FHFA specifically requests comments on any potential positive and negative impacts of increasing the subsidy limit from $15,000 to $22,000, including whether the subsidy limit should be higher or lower. FHFA also requests comments on use of the HPI to automatically adjust the subsidy limit upward over time, and whether other housing price adjustment indices would be preferable and why.
Current § 1291.6(d) would move unchanged to proposed § 1291.43. It provides that a Bank shall approve applications for AHP direct subsidy under its Homeownership Set-Aside Program in accordance with the Bank's criteria governing the allocation of funds.
Current § 1291.6(e) on the procedures for funding would move unchanged to proposed § 1291.44.
The current regulation's point-based project selection system serves as a means of ensuring that project awards reflect housing priorities established by the Bank Act.
There are a number of benefits associated with the current scoring system. It establishes a degree of uniformity among various scoring criteria that all of the Banks must include, thereby prioritizing certain pressing affordable housing needs existing throughout the country, and facilitating project sponsors' applications for AHP subsidy at multiple Banks. In addition, it provides flexibility for the Banks in how they allocate the points beyond the required minimums to target specific housing needs in their districts, the ability to
After considering input from Bank CIOs and stakeholders, FHFA believes that the Banks may be able to more effectively target specific housing needs in their districts through a more flexible scoring system. FHFA considered how to incorporate in the regulation greater flexibility for the Banks to design their own scoring systems, while at the same time to ensure that FHFA is establishing priorities for the use of the AHP funds as required by the statute. FHFA believes that the proposed rule would achieve an appropriate balance between these two objectives by authorizing the Banks to design their own scoring systems, subject to each Bank's AHP awards under its scoring system meeting specific outcome requirements established by FHFA in the regulation. The Banks would be required to demonstrate satisfaction of the outcome requirements each year. FHFA notes that comparable housing programs (
Proposed § 1291.48(a) would require that, each year, each Bank must award at least 55 percent of the total AHP funds allocated to its General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds to projects that meet the priority for the use of donated or conveyed government-owned or other properties (“government properties priority”), or the priority for projects sponsored by a not-for-profit organization or government entity (“project sponsorship priority”). These priorities, which correspond to those established by the Bank Act,
Under the proposed standard, a Bank could satisfy the outcome requirement if it awarded 55 percent or more of total funds to projects meeting one of the priorities, and none to the other priority. FHFA considered requiring a Bank to award a specified minimum percentage of total funds to each priority. However, in the Program's experience, a relatively limited number of projects satisfy the government properties priority. During the period 2012 through 2016, for example, only 2.5 percent of total AHP funds were awarded to projects that used properties meeting the government properties priority. Most AHP projects currently meet the project sponsorship priority. Accordingly, FHFA expects that the overwhelming majority of projects that would satisfy the proposed outcome requirement would do so by meeting the project sponsorship priority.
FHFA also considered requiring a Bank to award at least 55 percent of its required annual AHP contribution (which includes the funds allocated not only to its General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds but also to any Bank Homeownership Set-Aside Programs) to these two statutory priorities. FHFA anticipates that most Banks will take advantage of the opportunity to expand their allocations of AHP funds to their Homeownership Set-Aside Programs if the proposed increase in the annual set-aside allocation from 35 to 40 percent is adopted in the final rule. However, grant recipients under the Homeownership Set-Aside Program are households, not project sponsors, and therefore cannot meet the project sponsorship priority. In addition, the households generally do not purchase government properties. Thus, funds awarded under Homeownership Set-Aside Programs generally could not be counted towards meeting these statutory priorities. To enable the Banks to take full advantage of the proposed higher set-aside allocation, the proposed rule would limit this proposed outcome requirement to 55 percent of total funds allocated to the General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds.
Proposed § 1291.48(b) would require that, each year, each Bank must award at least 10 percent of its annual required AHP contribution to low- or moderate-income households, or to projects targeting such households, for the purchase by such households of homes under any or some combination of the Bank's General Fund, any Bank Targeted Funds, and any Bank Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. This is consistent with the priority in the Bank Act for the purchase of homes by low- or moderate-income families (“home purchase priority”).
Based on the Banks' widespread use of Homeownership Set-Aside Programs since their authorization, the home purchase priority has been consistently prioritized by the Banks, and FHFA expects this to continue given the continuing and significant demand by households for set-aside funds for home purchases. However, because the establishment of Homeownership Set-Aside Programs is optional for the Banks, and under the proposed regulatory priorities outcome requirements discussed below, a Bank would have discretion not to choose home purchase as a housing need in its scoring system, the proposed rule would require that at least 10 percent of a Bank's annual required AHP contribution be awarded to home purchases by low- or moderate-income households.
FHFA specifically requests comments on whether 10 percent of a Bank's annual required AHP contribution constitutes sufficient prioritization for the home purchase priority or whether the percentage should be higher or lower.
The proposed rule would establish an outcome requirement for a regulatory priority for very low-income targeting for rental units. Proposed § 1291.48(c) would provide that, each year, each Bank must ensure that at least 55 percent of all rental units in rental projects receiving AHP awards under the Bank's General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds are targeted to very low-income households (households with incomes at or below 50 percent of AMI). Targeting for very low-income renters is prioritized in the current regulation through the income-targeting scoring criterion.
FHFA specifically requests comments on the utility of this proposed outcome approach, including whether the proposed 55 percent threshold, applicability solely to rental units, and income-targeting at 50 percent of AMI are appropriate.
Proposed § 1291.48(d) would establish outcome requirements for three regulatory priorities for housing needs that FHFA considers current and pressing throughout the country. These regulatory priorities are underserved communities and populations; creating economic opportunities; and affordable housing preservation. The proposed outcome requirements for these regulatory priorities would satisfy the statutory requirement that FHFA establish priorities for the use of the AHP funds. Each regulatory priority would comprise a number of specified housing needs identified by FHFA, some of which are in the current regulation. FHFA could also identify other specific housing needs under the regulatory priorities by separate guidance, as new housing needs arise.
The proposed rule would provide that, every year, each Bank shall ensure that at least 55 percent of the Bank's required annual AHP contribution is awarded under the Bank's General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds to projects that, in the aggregate, meet at least two of the three regulatory priorities by meeting one or more of the specified housing needs included under the regulatory priority, and awarding at least 10 percent of the funds to projects meeting each of such regulatory priorities. If an awarded project meets more than one of the regulatory priorities, it may be counted towards meeting only one of them. If an awarded project meets more than one specified housing need under a regulatory priority, it may be counted towards meeting only one of those housing needs. In addition, an award to a project may not be counted towards meeting a regulatory priority unless the specified housing need that it meets is identified in the Bank's Targeted Community Lending Plan as an affordable housing need the Bank indicated it would address through its AHP scoring criteria.
The specified housing needs proposed under each regulatory priority are described below.
The current regulation includes housing for homeless households as a mandatory scoring criterion. The proposed rule would retain this housing need under this proposed regulatory priority, but increase the minimum threshold for the number of units reserved for homeless households from 20 to 50 percent to encourage projects dedicated to serving the needs of homeless households. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether this proposed increase is appropriate.
The current regulation includes housing for special needs populations as one of the eligible housing needs under the Bank First District Priority. The proposed rule would retain this housing need under this proposed regulatory priority, with the following changes. The proposed rule would include only projects that provide supportive services or access to supportive services for the specific special needs populations being served.
These populations have special needs associated with their particular life circumstances that could be addressed by targeted supportive services. Research by the Corporation for Supportive Housing estimates that 1.1 million homes are required for people with special needs, not including the need for units for households experiencing homelessness.
The proposed rule would continue to include the elderly, persons recovering from physical abuse or alcohol or drug abuse, persons with AIDS, persons with disabilities, and housing that is visitable by persons with physical disabilities who are not occupants of such housing as special need populations. The proposed rule would expand the list of special needs populations to include formerly incarcerated persons; victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking; and unaccompanied youth. These populations could particularly benefit from housing with supportive services targeted to address their specific needs.
In addition, the proposed rule would update the reference to “persons with AIDS” to “persons with HIV/AIDS” to more closely align it with common nomenclature and in recognition of the fact that persons with HIV experience comparable housing needs to persons with AIDS. The term “mentally or physically disabled persons” in the current regulation would similarly be updated to “persons with disabilities,” to reflect more commonly acceptable terminology.
The proposed rule would also include housing for other targeted populations under this proposed regulatory priority. In contrast to housing for special needs populations, this housing need would include housing that does not necessarily provide supportive services or access to supportive services, as there are specific populations in need of housing who may not require such services. The proposed rule would include as other targeted populations—agricultural workers, military veterans, persons with disabilities, Native Americans, multi-generational households, and households requiring large units. The proposed rule would set the minimum threshold for the number of units reserved for such targeted populations at 50 percent to encourage projects dedicated to serving the needs of these populations. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether the proposed minimum 50 percent threshold is appropriate.
The inclusion of agricultural workers and Native Americans would align with other FHFA goals and programs, specifically, FHFA's Duty to Serve regulation that applies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under which agricultural workers and Native Americans are identified as high-needs rural populations.
Persons with disabilities would be included as other targeted populations in recognition of the benefits that features such as wheelchair-accessibility and enhancements for people with visual or hearing impairments can provide so that persons with disabilities can live independently.
Military veterans would be included as other targeted populations due to their significant housing needs. The Veterans Administration's
Households requiring large units would be included as other targeted populations in light of the scarcity of affordable 3-, 4- and 5-bedroom unit apartments required to adequately house large households, for example, families with more than three children or with several related adult members.
Finally, multi-generational households would be included as other targeted populations because of their special housing needs. For example, grandparents raising grandchildren may benefit from housing that includes features of elderly projects (such as handrails in bathrooms and hallways) as well as features of family housing (such as outdoor play spaces).
The current regulation includes housing in rural areas as one of the eligible housing needs under the Bank First District Priority, and the Banks have discretion to define “rural area.” The proposed rule would retain this housing need under this regulatory priority, but would define “rural area” according to the definition in FHFA's Duty to Serve regulation in order to align with other FHFA goals and programs.
The proposed rule would include rental projects in which at least 20 percent of the units are reserved for extremely low-income households under this proposed regulatory priority. A definition of “extremely low-income household” would be added in § 1291.1 to mean a household with an income at or below 30 percent of AMI. According to HUD's
This housing need would be measured in dollars awarded to AHP projects in which at least 20 percent of the units are reserved for extremely low-income households to conform to the other housing needs under this proposed regulatory priority, which are also measured in dollars. In contrast, the regulatory priority in proposed § 1291.48(c) for very low-income targeting for rental units, described above, would be measured in the number of rental units reserved for very low-income households. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether the proposed 20 percent minimum threshold for units reserved for extremely low-income households is appropriate.
The current regulation includes promotion of empowerment as a mandatory scoring criterion. The proposed rule would retain this housing need under this proposed regulatory priority, with the following changes. The proposed rule would add to the list of empowerment services—child care; adult daycare services; afterschool care; tutoring; health services; and workforce preparation and integration.
The current regulation includes daycare as an eligible empowerment service. The proposed rule would replace daycare with child care, which encompasses daycare but is broader in that it includes programs offered not only during the day but outside of work hours and during summers, and programs that target older children. Residents of AHP projects may benefit from having such programs for their children depending on their work schedules and other commitments, thereby enabling them to work and improve their economic situations. Where child care programs are education-based, they may enhance the future economic opportunities of the children residing in AHP projects.
The proposed rule would add adult daycare services as an eligible empowerment service. These services can assist residents in AHP projects who may be caring for parents, or adult children with disabilities, who require supervised care so that the residents may work outside of the home.
Afterschool care would be added as an eligible empowerment service in recognition of the benefits of supervised afterschool programs for children and teens residing in AHP projects. For example, these programs may increase younger residents' future economic opportunities by assisting with schoolwork, encourage interest in the arts or community service, or teach job skills. Further, adult residents may benefit from the knowledge that their children are supervised in the hours before they return from work.
Tutoring would be included as an eligible empowerment service in light of the benefits that supplemental academic assistance may provide to children and teens for educational attainment. Tutoring may also be beneficial to adult residents who require tutoring in basic remedial education or English for limited-English-proficiency residents, for example, in order to obtain or retain work.
Health services would be added as an eligible empowerment service based on the research demonstrating the benefits of integrating health services into affordable housing, thereby enabling residents to stay healthy and continue to work. For example, early findings from a three-year research study by the Center for Outcomes Research and Education and Providence Health and Services in 145 affordable housing projects in Oregon found that integration of health care services (including access to healthy food, health care, nutrition counseling, and mental and behavioral health services) led to a
Finally, workforce preparation and integration services would be included as eligible empowerment services because of the benefit that these programs may yield to residents to obtain and retain work. Workforce integration services may help residents with disabilities obtain and retain jobs. Workforce preparation may assist residents with no previous work experience in obtaining skills helpful to securing a job, such as interviewing techniques or other communication techniques, and skills necessary to retain work, such as conflict resolution strategies.
The current regulation includes economic diversity as one of the eligible housing needs under the Bank First District Priority. The proposed rule would retain this housing need as empowerment, but would refer to it as “residential economic diversity” to align with the usage in FHFA's Duty to Serve regulation and would define it in accordance with the Duty to Serve definition and FHFA's Duty to Serve Evaluation Guidance.
The current regulation does not include any scoring criteria specifically for affordable rental housing preservation, but some Banks have included this housing need under their Bank Second District Priority. The proposed rule would include this housing need under the this proposed regulatory priority, and would include the specific affordable rental housing preservation programs and housing needs identified in FHFA's Duty to Serve regulation in order to align with related FHFA goals and programs. These are:
(a) Rental housing with energy or water efficiency improvements;
(b) Section 8. The project-based and tenant-based rental assistance housing programs under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937;
(c) Section 236. The rental and cooperative housing program for lower income families under section 236 of the National Housing Act;
(d) Section 221(d)(4). The housing program for moderate-income and displaced families under section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing Act;
(e) Section 202. The supportive housing program for the elderly under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959;
(f) Section 811. The supportive housing program for persons with disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
(g) McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance. Permanent supportive housing projects subsidized under Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act;
(h) Section 515. The rural rental housing program under section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949;
(i) Low-income housing tax credits. Low-income housing tax credits under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(j) Other comparable state or local affordable housing programs.
The current regulation does not include scoring criteria specifically for affordable homeownership preservation, but some Banks have included this housing need,
FHFA specifically requests comments on whether the three proposed regulatory priorities—underserved communities and populations, creating economic opportunities, and affordable housing preservation—constitute significant housing priorities that should be included in the regulation, or whether other housing priorities should be included. FHFA also requests comments on whether the specified housing needs identified under each regulatory priority, or other specific housing needs, should be included in the regulation.
Proposed § 1291.48(e) would require each Bank to submit an annual report to FHFA demonstrating the Bank's compliance with the outcome requirements.
Under proposed § 1291.49, the Director of FHFA would be required to determine annually each Bank's compliance with the outcome requirements for the statutory and regulatory priorities under proposed § 1291.48. Proposed § 1291.49 would establish procedures, including time periods, for the compliance determination process. These procedures would include issuance of a notice of preliminary determination, an opportunity for the Bank to respond, and issuance of a final determination and whether compliance was feasible, taking into consideration market and economic conditions and the financial condition of the Bank. These proposed procedures are generally analogous to those in the Enterprise Housing Goals regulation.
As discussed above, in determining whether to revise the current AHP regulatory scoring system, FHFA considered how the current mandatory and discretionary scoring criteria address housing priorities established by FHFA and impact the Banks' ability to address specific housing needs in their districts. FHFA requests comments on whether the Banks have sufficient flexibility under the current scoring system to target specific housing needs in their districts, including awarding subsidy to address multiple housing needs in a single AHP funding period. If they do, FHFA requests comments on whether the current regulatory scoring system should be maintained without change, or whether any of the current mandatory scoring criteria and minimum required point allocations should be modified to reflect other specific housing needs. FHFA also requests comments on whether the Bank First and Second District Priorities should be combined and the list of housing needs in the Bank First District Priority eliminated. FHFA notes that the Banks do not currently allocate the full 45 points available to their Bank Second District Priority, and they include multiple housing needs under this Priority, resulting in no one housing need effectively receiving priority under the current scoring system.
The Bank Act requires the AHP regulation to ensure that adequate long-term monitoring is available to guarantee that affordability standards and other AHP requirements are satisfied.
Specifically, the current regulation requires the Banks to adopt written policies for monitoring projects and households awarded AHP subsidies under both the Competitive Application Program and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.
For initial monitoring under the Competitive Application Program, the regulation requires the Banks to monitor owner-occupied and rental projects prior to, and within a reasonable period after, project completion by:
• Reviewing documentation to determine whether AHP eligibility requirements have been satisfied, services and activities committed in the approved AHP application have been provided, and AHP retention agreements are in place; and
• Reviewing back-up project documentation (such as rent rolls and households' W-2 forms) on a risk-based sampling basis, of household incomes and rents maintained by the project sponsors to verify that the household incomes and rents comply with the commitments in the approved AHP applications. In practice, for initial monitoring, the Banks review the project sponsor documentation and rent rolls at initial monitoring, and review other back-up documentation on a risk-basis.
For long-term monitoring under the Competitive Application Program, the regulation generally requires the Banks to monitor completed AHP rental projects commencing in the second year after project completion to determine, at a minimum, whether household incomes and rents comply with the income targeting and rent commitments in the approved AHP applications during the AHP 15-year retention period by:
• Reviewing annual project owner certifications of household incomes and rents for compliance with the AHP application commitments, which may be reviewed on a risk-based sampling basis; and
• Reviewing back-up project documentation for incomes and rents, including project rent rolls, maintained by the project owner, which may also be reviewed on a risk-based sampling basis pursuant to the Bank's risk-based sampling plan.
The regulation provides that a Bank's written monitoring policies must take into account risk factors such as the amount of AHP subsidy in the project, type of project, size of project, location of project, sponsor experience, and any monitoring of the project provided by a federal, state, or local government entity.
The regulation permits the Banks to develop and implement reasonable sampling plans to monitor rental projects that receive subsidies under the Competitive Application Program as well as households that receive subsidies under the Homeownership Set-Aside Program. The regulation permits the Banks to use the sampling plans to monitor back-up documentation of household incomes and rents. The regulation does not permit the use of sampling plans for monitoring member certifications under the Homeownership Set-Aside Program.
The regulation makes some exceptions to the long-term monitoring requirements for certain types of AHP rental projects. Specifically, for AHP projects that also receive LIHTC, the Banks may rely on the long-term monitoring of LIHTC household incomes and rents performed by state-designated housing credit agencies that administer LIHTC, and the Banks do not have to review any monitoring documentation.
The regulation also makes an exception to the long-term monitoring requirements for AHP rental projects that received funds from federal, state, or local government entities provided the Bank is able to demonstrate the following: (1) The compliance profile of the program is substantively equivalent to AHP requirements; (2) the governmental entity has the ability to monitor the project; (3) the governmental entity agrees to provide reports to the Bank on the project's incomes and rents for the full AHP 15-year retention period; and (4) the Bank reviews the reports from the governmental entity to confirm compliance with its monitoring policies. However, this monitoring option has not proved feasible for the Banks.
In 2016, 51 percent of AHP projects received LIHTC allocations, comprising 62 percent of total AHP competitive funds awarded. The current regulation has allowed the Banks to rely on the long-term monitoring of LIHTC projects by state-designated housing tax credit allocation agencies since 2006 because the LIHTC income, rent, and long-term retention period requirements are the same as or substantially equivalent to those of the AHP, and because LIHTC projects rarely go out of compliance with those requirements. As noted by some stakeholders, the same analysis for long-term monitoring of LIHTC projects could be applied to initial monitoring of LIHTC projects and, therefore, the Banks should also be permitted to rely at initial monitoring upon the income and rent monitoring performed by the state-designated tax credit allocation agencies.
The initial rationale for allowing the Banks to rely on monitoring of LIHTC projects by the state-designated tax credit allocation agencies continues to hold true—the LIHTC income, rent, and long-term retention period requirements are substantially equivalent to those of the AHP, the state-designated tax credit allocation agencies monitor the projects, and LIHTC projects rarely go out of compliance with the income and rent requirements.
LIHTC project owners bear responsibility for ensuring that their projects comply with the program's income, rent, and retention period requirements. The owners face severe consequences for noncompliance, which serve as a substantial deterrent to noncompliance. Because LIHTC investors cannot receive the benefits of the tax credits for units that are not in compliance, LIHTC project owners guarantee to their investors that their projects remain in compliance, or must repay investors the amount of tax credits lost plus any penalties or interest levied by the Internal Revenue Service.
LIHTC projects are monitored not only by the state-designated tax credit allocation agencies, but also annually by the LIHTC project owners and LIHTC investors. LIHTC project owners must certify the income of each household at move-in, and must re-certify the income of each household annually.
As noted above, the Banks currently may review LIHTC back-up documentation at initial monitoring on a risk basis. Given the low risks of noncompliance by LIHTC projects, the Banks can establish review schedules for the back-up documentation that are not especially burdensome. For example, a Bank might choose to review LIHTC back-up documentation once or twice during the project's 15-year AHP retention period. Although the administrative burden on the project sponsors to provide, and the Banks to review, LIHTC back-up documentation may not be significant, FHFA believes that eliminating this monitoring requirement would benefit the Banks and project sponsors by reducing their administrative costs.
The proposed rule would not require that the Bank's AHP agreement with the member or project sponsor or owner include a provision for the project sponsor or owner to send written notice of noncompliance with other government programs to the Banks. As discussed below, the Banks would be receiving other information that would help inform them of potential or actual project noncompliance. The Banks would be required to obtain information from project sponsors or owners on their projects' compliance with these other government programs, as well as the projects' on-going financial viability (“enhanced certifications”), which the Banks obtain currently but to varying degrees. The Banks would also continue to review annual project sponsor certifications. In addition, the noncompliance rates for projects under these other government programs are low.
The FHFA guidance initially would specify the following federal government programs as eligible for this reduced monitoring:
○ HUD Section 202 Program for the Elderly;
○ HUD Section 811 Program for Housing the Disabled;
○ USDA Section 515 Rural Multifamily Program; and
○ USDA Section 514 Farmworker Multifamily Program.
Stakeholders requested that FHFA allow the Banks to rely upon the income qualification tests performed by USDA Rural Development and HUD-funded projects at initial monitoring. Further, stakeholders requested that FHFA allow a Bank, in its discretion, for purposes of long-term monitoring, to rely upon the monitoring conducted by HUD and USDA Rural Development, as the Banks are currently allowed to rely on the monitoring of the agency administering LIHTC.
In 2016, approximately two-thirds of AHP projects received funding from other federal programs. FHFA analyzed the extent to which AHP projects also receive subsidies from HUD and USDA programs to determine the extent to which Banks could conceivably rely on HUD and USDA monitoring for these projects. In 2016, 26 percent of AHP projects received HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) financing, 8 percent received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and 12 percent received other federal financing, including from USDA. FHFA then analyzed HUD and USDA programs to determine which programs have substantially equivalent rent, income, and retention requirements to the AHP, very low noncompliance rates, and where the monitoring entity has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate its ability to monitor the program. These programs are further discussed below.
FHFA also reviewed HUD's HOME Program, CDBG Program, Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, Housing Trust Fund, and Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) Section 8 Program, as well as single-family mortgage revenue bond financing programs. FHFA found that each program has some standards that differ from the AHP in income, rent or retention periods, varying monitoring practices around the country, or a lack of available data on the projects' noncompliance rates (in the case of the PBRA Section Program). Therefore, relying on the monitoring of these other government funding programs is not currently feasible for the AHP.
Because the income, rent, and retention period standards, monitoring practices, and compliance profiles of government housing subsidy programs may change over time, FHFA is proposing to include a list of federal government programs that currently meet the requirements discussed above in separate guidance, which FHFA could occasionally revise in the event that programs' requirements become compatible or incompatible with the AHP requirements, or new programs are established that have compatible requirements.
The proposed monitoring changes would create a modest decrease in the Banks' administrative responsibilities by expanding their ability to rely on other government programs for both initial and long-term monitoring. The Banks currently have an average of 260 AHP rental projects per Bank to monitor, although the monitoring is reduced significantly by the Banks' ability to conduct long-term monitoring of the projects on a risk-basis.
FHFA specifically requests comments on whether the proposed reductions in the Banks' monitoring responsibilities are reasonable, taking into consideration the risks of noncompliance and the costs of project monitoring. FHFA also requests comments on whether data is available on the noncompliance rates of projects funded under the PBRA Section 8 Program.
During long-term monitoring, the Banks are only required to monitor projects for compliance with the household income-targeting and rent commitments in their AHP applications. Reviewing income and rent information alone limits the ability of the Banks to determine whether projects are experiencing operational challenges or in danger of foreclosure. Thus, in addition to obtaining household income and rent information, Banks have, to varying degrees, been requesting additional information from project sponsors in order to discover project issues before they escalate. This additional information enables the Banks to work with other funders to address project concerns and any noncompliance, including attempting remediation through workout strategies or recovery of AHP subsidy for noncompliance. It also mitigates the risk
Accordingly, the proposed rule would require the Banks to obtain such “enhanced” annual certifications from project sponsors during the AHP 15-year retention period that include information on the ongoing financial viability of the project.
The current monitoring provisions for the Homeownership Set-Aside Program would move from § 1291.7(b) to proposed § 1291.51. The requirement to monitor compliance with the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement would be removed because FHFA is proposing to eliminate this requirement.
The current provisions addressing remedial actions for AHP noncompliance in § 1291.8 would move to proposed Subpart G, and each type of noncompliance—project sponsor or owner, member, or Bank—would be included in a separate section so that the responsibilities and potential liabilities of each party are clear. Substantive changes would also be made regarding the order in which certain remedial actions must be taken.
Subpart G would also include a new section addressing remedies for Bank noncompliance with the proposed outcome requirements for the statutory and regulatory priorities, including housing plans and reimbursement of the AHP fund.
The proposed changes are discussed below.
Proposed § 1291.60 would address AHP project noncompliance. The language would be revised and streamlined to provide greater clarity on the scope of the section and the responsibilities of the various parties. The proposed rule would also make substantive changes by establishing an order of remedial steps that a Bank would be required to follow before recovering AHP subsidy. The proposed rule would clarify factors for Bank consideration in determining whether to settle for less than the full amount of AHP subsidy due. These changes are discussed below.
Under proposed § 1291.27(a), a modification must be approved by the Bank if the project, as modified, meets all of the modification requirements in that section, including that there is good cause for the modification that is not solely eliminating the noncompliance, and that the project rescores as high as the lowest ranking alternate approved for funding by the Bank in the project's original AHP funding period. In the above example, if the project sponsor or owner were not able to find enough households meeting its income-targeting commitments to occupy the next available vacant units, the Bank would determine whether the project could be modified to target those units to higher income (but still AHP income-eligible) households by rescoring the project based on the number of units to be targeted to the higher incomes. If the project rescored successfully, then the project would be modified, thereby eliminating the circumstances of the noncompliance, and no subsidy recovery would be required.
If the demand for repayment of the full amount of subsidy due is unsuccessful, then the member, in consultation with the Bank, would be required to make reasonable efforts to collect the subsidy from the project sponsor or owner. Members have this role under the current regulation. The proposed rule would clarify that members would carry out these efforts in consultation with the Bank, consistent with current practice.
Under the current regulation, reasonable collection efforts may include settlement for less than the full amount of subsidy due, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the noncompliance, including the
As under the current regulation, the proposed rule would require that a settlement be supported by sufficient documentation showing that the sum agreed to be repaid is reasonably justified, based on the facts and circumstances of the noncompliance discussed above. FHFA specifically requests comments on whether those facts and circumstances are appropriate for consideration during reasonable collection efforts, and whether there are other factors that should be considered as well.
The proposed rule would eliminate current § 1291.8(d)(2), which provides Banks the option to seek prior approval from FHFA of a proposed subsidy settlement. Since inception of this option, only one Bank has used it and for two similar cases. The Banks may enter into subsidy settlements, in their discretion, provided the settlements are supported by reasonable justifications. The Banks have made these types of business decisions for many years without seeking prior FHFA approval. Moreover, the proposed rule would further clarify the factors the Banks should consider in deciding whether to settle with the project sponsor or owner. Accordingly, there is no need to retain this prior approval provision in the regulation.
Proposed § 1291.61 would address member noncompliance, which is currently addressed in § 1291.8(b)(1). As under the current regulation, if a member uses AHP subsidy for purposes other than those committed to in the AHP application or the requirements of the regulation, the Bank would be required to recover from the member the amount of subsidy used for such impermissible purposes.
Current § 1291.8(e), which addresses circumstances where a Bank would be required to reimburse its AHP fund, would move to proposed § 1291.62, with no substantive changes.
Current § 1291.8(g) addressing suspension or debarment of members, project sponsors, or project owners would move unchanged to proposed § 1291.63.
Proposed § 1291.64 would include current § 1291.8(f)(1), which provides that AHP subsidy repaid to a Bank under the AHP regulation must be made available by the Bank for other AHP-eligible projects. The proposed rule would clarify that the repaid subsidy may also be made available by the Bank for AHP-eligible households.
The proposed rule would remove the provision in current § 1291.8(f)(2) providing for re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidies in the same project because it applies where AHP subsidy is repaid by a household due to sale or refinancing of the home to a household that is not low- or moderate-income household during the retention period, and FHFA is proposing to eliminate this subsidy repayment requirement in connection with elimination of the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement.
Proposed new § 1291.65 would provide that if the Director of FHFA determines that a Bank has failed to comply with an outcome requirement for the statutory and regulatory priorities and compliance was feasible, the Director may require the Bank to take actions to remedy the noncompliance, including but not limited to, reimbursement by the Bank of its AHP fund for the difference in the amount of AHP funds required to be awarded to meet the outcome requirement and the amount the Bank actually awarded, or implementation of a housing plan. A housing plan would describe the specific actions the Bank would take to comply with the outcome requirements for the next calendar year. The proposed procedures, including time periods, for submission, review and approval of a proposed housing plan, are generally analogous to those under the Enterprise Housing Goals regulation.
The proposed rule would move current § 1291.8(h), which addresses transfer of a Bank's Program to another Bank in the event of mismanagement of its Program, to proposed § 1291.66 with no changes.
The proposed rule would rescind current § 1291.8(i) because the provision refers to a now-repealed Finance Board regulatory provision that was intended to establish a formal process for review by the Board of Directors of the Finance Board of certain types of supervisory decisions, which FHFA opted not to adopt.
Current § 1291.12 addressing the requirements for an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund would move to proposed § 1291.70. In the 28 years of the Program, there has never been cause for the agency to establish an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund because the demand for AHP funds at each Bank has always exceeded the amount available, and no Bank has failed to use or commit in full its required annual AHP contribution.
The proposed rule would revise the current provision by requiring that amounts remaining unused or uncommitted at year-end would be deemed to be used or committed if, in combination with AHP funds that have been returned to the Bank or de-committed from canceled projects, they are insufficient to fund the next highest scoring AHP applications in the Bank's final funding period of the year for its General Fund first and then for any Targeted Funds established by the Bank.
In addition to requesting comments on the entire proposed rule, FHFA is listing below, for ease of reference, the specific requests for comments included throughout the preamble above. Please identify the specific request for
1. What are the benefits and risks of allowing the Banks to establish Targeted Funds?
2. Is the proposed allocation of 40 percent of total AHP funds to Targeted Funds an appropriate percentage, or should the percentage be higher or lower?
3. Would the proposed expansion of the contents of the Targeted Community Lending Plans impede the Banks' ability to respond to disasters through the AHP?
4. What are the benefits of the proposed expansion of the contents of the Targeted Community Lending Plans and their linkage to the AHP Implementation Plans?
5. Is the requirement that members' AHP agreements with LIHTC project sponsors include a provision requiring the sponsors to provide prompt written notice to the Bank if the project is in noncompliance with the LIHTC income-targeting or rent requirements at any time during the AHP 15-year retention period practical, and should it also be required of project sponsors in the event of noncompliance by their projects with the income-targeting or rent requirements of the government housing programs discussed under the Monitoring section?
6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of an AHP owner-occupied retention agreement, would eliminating it impact FHFA's ability to ensure that AHP funds are being used for the statutorily intended purposes, and are there ways to deter flipping other than a retention agreement?
7. Should the proposed increase in the maximum permissible grant to households from $15,000 to $22,000 under the Homeownership Set-Aside Program impact the decision on whether to eliminate the retention agreement?
8. Should the current provision in retention agreements requiring that notice of a sale or refinancing during the retention period be provided to either the Bank or its designee (typically the member) be revised to require that the notice be provided to both the Bank and its designee if a retention agreement requirement is retained in the final rule?
9. Should the AHP retention agreement, if retained in the final rule, require the AHP-assisted household to repay AHP subsidy to the Bank from any net proceeds on the sale or refinancing of the home or from the net gain?
10. What are the merits and disadvantages of the net proceeds and net gain calculations from the standpoint of the AHP-assisted households and the Banks, and are there other subsidy repayment approaches FHFA should consider, if the AHP retention agreement requirement is retained in the final rule?
11. What approaches would provide a reasonable basis to assume that the subsequent purchaser of an AHP-assisted unit is likely to be low- or moderate-income, including proxies that could serve this purpose?
12. What proxies would be reasonable for assuming a subsequent purchaser's income, including the following or others: Certification from the subsequent purchaser or a third party that the subsequent purchaser's income is at or below the low- or moderate-income limit; evidence that the subsequent purchaser is receiving direct homebuyer assistance from another government program with household income targeting requirements substantially equivalent to those of the AHP; the purchase price of the AHP-assisted unit is less than the median home price in the area; the AHP-assisted unit is located in a census tract. or block group where at least 51 percent of the households are low- or moderate-income; or FHA or other underwriting standards indicating that the income required to purchase the AHP-assisted unit at the purchase price is low- or moderate-income?
13. Should there be an exception to the AHP subsidy repayment requirement in the AHP retention agreement, if retained in the final rule, where the amount of AHP subsidy subject to repayment, after calculating the net proceeds or net gain, is $1,000 or less?
14. If the AHP retention agreement is retained in the final rule, should the rule clarify that the obligation to repay AHP subsidy to a Bank shall terminate not only after any event of foreclosure, but also after transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure, assignment of an FHA mortgage to HUD, or death of the owner(s) of the unit?
15. How should preservation of rental projects be encouraged through the AHP while discouraging displacement of current occupants with higher incomes than those targeted in the AHP application submitted to the Bank for approval, and is the proposed requirement for a relocation plan approved by the primary funder reasonable?
16. Are the current AHP requirements for sponsor-provided permanent financing reasonable, do the sponsors have a need for AHP subsidy in light of their particular financing model, and does the current method in the regulation for determining their need for AHP subsidy understate or overstate the amount of AHP subsidy needed?
17. Should sponsors using the sponsor-provided permanent financing model be considered revolving loan funds and, if so, should they be subject to the current or different AHP revolving loan fund requirements?
18. What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of allowing the Banks to impose a maximum subsidy limit per project sponsor?
19. What are possible approaches for re-ranking applications to meet the outcome requirements while at the same time maximizing the extent to which the highest scoring applications are approved?
20. Are the current AHP revolving loan fund provisions reasonable, and how could the financing mechanisms of revolving loan funds be used successfully with AHP subsidies?
21. Why have certain AHP scoring criteria for revolving loan funds been difficult to meet, how would AHP subsidy be repaid in the event of project noncompliance, and how can a revolving loan fund demonstrate a need for the AHP subsidy?
22. Would the proposed outcome requirements for the statutory and regulatory priorities facilitate use of AHP subsidies by revolving loan funds, and if so, how?
23. What are the potential positive or negative impacts of eliminating the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement for revolving loan funds?
24. Are there loan pools currently existing in the market that meet the conditions in the current regulation, how are the loan pools addressing current housing market needs, and what are the potential positive or negative impacts of eliminating the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement for loan pools?
25. Are there any potential positive and negative impacts of increasing the subsidy limit per household from $15,000 to $22,000, and should the subsidy limit be higher or lower?
26. Is the proposed use of FHFA's Housing Price Index to automatically adjust the subsidy limit upward over time appropriate, or are there other housing price adjustment indices that would be preferable and why?
27. Does the proposed outcome requirement of 10 percent of a Bank's total AHP funds constitute prioritization for the home purchase priority, or should the percentage be higher or lower?
28. What is the utility of the proposed outcome approach to income targeting, and are the proposed 55 percent threshold, its applicability solely to rental units, and income-targeting at 50 percent of AMI appropriate?
29. Is the proposed increase in the minimum threshold from 20 to 50 percent for the number of units reserved for homeless households appropriate?
30. Is the proposed increase in the minimum threshold from 20 to 50 percent for the number of units in a project reserved for households with a specific special need appropriate?
31. Is the proposed 50 percent minimum threshold for the number of units in a project reserved for other targeted populations appropriate?
32. Is the proposed 20 percent minimum threshold for the number of units in a project reserved for extremely low-income households appropriate?
33. Do the three proposed regulatory priorities described in proposed § 1291.48—underserved communities and populations, creating economic opportunities, and affordable housing preservation—constitute significant housing priorities that should be included in the regulation, or should other housing priorities be included?
34. Should the specific housing needs identified under each regulatory priority be included, or are there other specific housing needs that should be included?
35. Do the Banks have sufficient flexibility under the current scoring system to target specific housing needs in their districts, including awarding subsidy to address multiple housing needs in a single AHP funding period?
36. Should the current regulatory scoring system be maintained without change?
37. Should any of the current mandatory scoring criteria and minimum required point allocations be modified to reflect other specific housing needs?
38. Should the current Bank First and Second District Priorities be combined and the list of housing needs in the Bank First District Priority eliminated?
39. Are the proposed reductions in the Banks' monitoring requirements reasonable, taking into consideration the risks of noncompliance and the costs of project monitoring?
40. Is data available on the noncompliance rates of projects funded under the PBRA Section 8 Program?
41. Are the facts and circumstances described in proposed § 1291.60 appropriate for consideration by a Bank during reasonable subsidy collection efforts, and are there other factors that should be considered as well?
Section 1313(f) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 requires the Director of FHFA, when promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as they relate to the Banks': Cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. The proposed rule would apply only to the Banks. It would amend the current regulation to provide additional authority to the Banks regarding certain Program operations, streamline project monitoring requirements, clarify various parties' responsibilities regarding noncompliance, and clarify certain operational requirements. There is no direct Enterprise-specific analog to the Banks' AHP. In preparing this proposed rule, the Director considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the above factors, and determined that the rule is appropriate. FHFA requests comments regarding whether differences related to those factors should result in any revisions to the proposed rule.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
FHFA is soliciting comments on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on Bank members, project sponsors, and project owners, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
You may submit written comments on the information collection requirements on or before May 14, 2018 and should direct them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-3047, Email:
Part 1291 requires the Banks to collect various types of information relating to their AHPs from their members and (both directly and indirectly) from AHP project sponsors and owners. Those information collection requirements fall into six categories: (1) AHP Competitive Applications; (2) compliance submissions for approved Competitive Application projects at AHP subsidy disbursement; (3) modification requests for approved Competitive Application projects; (4) initial monitoring submissions for approved Competitive Application projects; (5) long-term monitoring submissions for approved Competitive Application projects; and (6) Homeownership Set-Aside Program applications and certifications. As revised by the proposed rule, the collections of information under part
The proposed rule would eliminate the existing requirement that each Bank establish a Competitive Application Program. As revised, part 1291 would instead require each Bank to establish a General Fund, and authorize each Bank to establish up to three Targeted Funds (subject to a phase-in period), each of which would be subject to a competitive application process similar to that required for the Banks' Competitive Application Programs under the current regulation. Projects funded under the Banks' General Fund and any Targeted Funds established would be subject to requirements regarding subsidy disbursements, modification requests, and initial and long-term monitoring that are similar to those that currently apply to their Competitive Application Programs. Thus, the descriptions of the first five of the six information collection categories, which relate to the Banks' Competitive Application Programs, would be modified to refer instead to the Banks' General Funds and Targeted Funds. The description of the sixth category, relating to the Banks' Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, would remain the same.
FHFA has analyzed each of the six categories of information that would be collected under part 1291, as revised by the proposed rule, in order to estimate the hour burdens that the collection would impose upon Bank members and AHP project sponsors and owners annually over the three years following the effective date of the final rule. Based on that analysis, FHFA estimates that the total annual hour burden will be 127,605. This represents an increase of 11,855 hours over the estimate of 115,750 made in connection with the most recent renewal of the OMB control number. This increase is attributable to an expected increase in the number of AHP competitive applications received by the Banks due to some of the proposed revisions, as well as an expected increase in the number of AHP competitive projects and Homeownership Set-Aside direct subsidies approved because of anticipated higher required annual AHP contributions arising from projected higher Bank incomes. On balance, the proposed rule would not increase information collection burdens on a per-submission basis.
The method FHFA used to determine the annual hour burden for each category of information collected is explained in detail below. Set forth for each category are: (1) A summary of the existing information collection requirement, including the types of respondents and frequency of collection; (2) a short description of the manner in which the proposed regulatory amendments would affect the requirement and the associated burden estimates; (3) the need for and use of the information to be collected; and (4) the new annualized hourly burden estimates, as compared to the estimates made in the PRA submissions that are the basis for the current clearance.
(a)
(b)
The proposed rule would, to a minor extent, require the Banks to obtain from Bank members and project sponsors and owners applying for AHP subsidies certain information when evaluating AHP applications that they are not expressly required to evaluate under the current regulation. Under the proposed rule, the Banks would be required to obtain from all AHP applicants information needed to evaluate whether the project sponsor (including all affiliates and team members such as the general contractor) is able to perform the responsibilities committed to in the AHP application, as well as information needed to provide assurance that those parties have not engaged in certain types of misconduct. The proposed rule would also require the Banks to obtain from applicants for rental project subsidies the project's operating pro forma (in addition to the project's development budget, which is expressly required under the current regulation) for use in confirming the need for the AHP subsidy. FHFA anticipates that these submission requirements may be met with materials that have already been prepared for other purposes and that, therefore, they will not materially add to the time required to prepare an AHP competitive application.
To the extent that Banks choose to establish Targeted Funds, as would be permitted under the proposed rule, they could see an increase in AHP applications in connection with projects that would be unlikely to be approved under the existing scoring criteria for their Competitive Application Programs. Based on this expectation, FHFA estimates that the number of AHP competitive applications received by the Banks annually would increase by 10 percent—from 1,350 to 1,485—over the estimates made in FHFA's most recent submissions to OMB for the information collection requirements under part 1291.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
The proposed rule would also provide that, for AHP projects funded by certain other government programs specified in separate FHFA guidance, the Banks would be required to obtain and review only project sponsor certifications and rent rolls at the initial monitoring stage. For such projects, the Banks would not be required to review any back-up documentation for incomes and rents, as is generally required at the initial monitoring stage.
FHFA estimates that these proposed revisions would decrease the average amount of time needed for Bank members and project sponsors or owners to prepare and submit materials related to the initial monitoring of approved projects by ten percent.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
The proposed rule would codify existing Bank best practices that require submission by project sponsors of annual project certifications during the AHP 15-year retention period that include not only the required household income and rent information, but also information on the ongoing financial viability of the project, such as whether the project is current on property taxes and loan payments, its vacancy rate, or whether it is in compliance with its commitments to other funding sources.
FHFA estimates that the net effect of the above-described revisions would be to decrease the average amount of time needed for Bank members and project sponsors or owners to prepare and submit materials related to the long-term monitoring of approved projects by ten percent.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
None of the proposed revisions would affect the amount of time needed for a Bank member to prepare a Homeownership Set-Aside Program application or monitoring certification.
(c)
(d)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
Banks and banking, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, Low- and moderate-income housing, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FHFA proposes to amend parts 1290 and 1291 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1430(g).
(a) * * *
(5) Include an annual Targeted Community Lending Plan, approved by the Bank's board of directors and subject to modification. The Bank's board of directors shall not delegate to a committee of the board, Bank officers, or other Bank employees the responsibility to adopt or amend the Targeted Community Lending Plan. The Targeted Community Lending Plan shall:
(i) Reflect market research conducted in the Bank's district;
(ii) Describe how the Bank will address identified credit needs and market opportunities in the Bank's district for targeted community lending;
(iii) Be developed in consultation with (and may only be amended after consultation with) its Advisory Council and with members, housing associates, and public and private economic development organizations in the Bank's district in developing and implementing its Targeted Community Lending Plan;
(iv) Establish quantitative targeted community lending performance goals; and
(v) Describe how the Bank will address identified significant affordable housing needs in its district through its Affordable Housing Program, reflecting:
(A) Market research conducted or obtained by the Bank on affordable housing needs in the Bank's district;
(B) Identification and assessment of significant affordable housing needs in the Bank's district, supported by empirical data; and
(C) Specification, from among the identified affordable housing needs, of the specific affordable housing needs the Bank will address through its funding allocations and scoring criteria under its General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, as set forth in its AHP Implementation Plan pursuant to 12 CFR 1291.13(b).
(c)
(d)
12 U.S.C. 1430(j).
As used in this part:
(1) The rent charged to a household for a unit that is to be reserved for occupancy by a household with an income at or below 80 percent of the median income for the area, does not exceed 30 percent of the income of a household of the maximum income and size expected, under the commitment made in the AHP application, to occupy the unit (assuming occupancy of 1.5 persons per bedroom or 1.0 persons per unit without a separate bedroom); or
(2) The rent charged to a household, for rental units subsidized with Section 8 assistance under 42 U.S.C. 1437f or subsidized under another assistance program where the rents are charged in the same way as under the Section 8 Program, if the rent complied with this definition at the time of the household's initial occupancy and the household continues to be assisted through the Section 8 or another assistance program, respectively.
(1) In the case of owner-occupied housing, the household's income may not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area; and
(2) In the case of rental housing, the household's income in at least 20 percent of the units may not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the area.
(1) The median income for the area, as published annually by HUD;
(2) The median income for the area obtained from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council;
(3) The applicable median family income, as determined under 26 U.S.C. 143(f) (Mortgage Revenue Bonds) and published by a state agency or instrumentality;
(4) The median income for the area, as published by the United States Department of Agriculture; or
(5) The median income for an applicable definable geographic area, as published by a federal, state, or local government entity, and approved by FHFA, at the request of a Bank, for use under the AHP.
(1) Has an ownership interest (including any partnership interest), as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, in a rental project;
(2) Is integrally involved, as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, in an owner-occupied project, such as by exercising control over the planning, development, or management of the project, or by qualifying borrowers and providing or arranging financing for the owners of the units;
(3) Operates a loan pool; or
(4) Is a revolving loan fund.
(1) A direct subsidy, provided that if a direct subsidy is used to write down the interest rate on a loan extended by a member, sponsor, or other party to a project, the subsidy must equal the net present value of the interest foregone from making the loan below the lender's market interest rate; or
(2) The net present value of the interest revenue foregone from making a subsidized advance at a rate below the Bank's cost of funds.
Each Bank shall contribute annually to its Program the greater of:
(a) 10 percent of the Bank's net earnings for the previous year; or
(b) That Bank's pro rata share of an aggregate of $100 million to be contributed in total by the Banks, such proration being made on the basis of the net earnings of the Banks for the previous year, except that the required annual AHP contribution for a Bank shall not exceed its net earnings in the previous year.
(a)
(b)
(i) Severely depressed Bank earnings;
(ii) A substantial decline in Bank membership capital; and
(iii) A substantial reduction in Bank advances outstanding.
(2)
(i) A change in the terms of advances to members that is not justified by market conditions;
(ii) Inordinate operating and administrative expenses; or
(iii) Mismanagement.
Each Bank, after consultation with its Advisory Council and pursuant to written policies adopted by the Bank's board of directors, shall meet the following requirements for allocation of its required annual AHP contribution.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) 20 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution to any Targeted Funds;
(ii) 30 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution to any Targeted Funds, provided that it allocated at least 20 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution to one or more Targeted Funds in any preceding year; or
(iii) 40 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution to any Targeted Funds, provided that it allocated at least 30 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution to one or more Targeted Funds in any preceding year.
(2)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1) The applicable median income standard or standards adopted by the Bank consistent with the definition of median income for the area in § 1291.1.
(2) For the General Fund established by the Bank pursuant to § 1291.20(a), the Bank's requirements for the General Fund, including the specific funding allocation pursuant to § 1291.12(a), the Bank's scoring criteria, including its scoring tie-breaker policy, adopted pursuant to § 1291.25(d), and the possibility of re-ranking scored applications and alternates pursuant to § 1291.26.
(3) For each Targeted Fund established by the Bank, if any, pursuant to § 1291.20(b), the Bank's requirements for the Targeted Fund, including the specific funding allocation pursuant to § 1291.12(c), the Bank's scoring criteria, including its scoring tie-breaker policy, adopted pursuant to § 1291.25(d), the possibility of re-ranking scored applications and alternates pursuant to § 1291.26, and the controls adopted pursuant to § 1291.20(c)(1).
(4) The Bank's policy on how it will decide under which Fund to approve a project that scores high enough to be approved under multiple Funds, pursuant to § 1291.26(d).
(5) For each Homeownership Set-Aside Program established by the Bank, if any, pursuant to § 1291.40, the Bank's requirements for the program, including the specific funding allocation, how the one-third allocation requirement is apportioned with respect to first-time homebuyers and households for owner-occupied rehabilitation pursuant to § 1291.12(b), and the Bank's application and subsidy disbursement methodology.
(6) The Bank's retention agreement requirements for rental projects under its General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds pursuant to § 1291.15(a)(7).
(7) Any optional Bank district eligibility requirements adopted by the Bank pursuant to § 1291.24(c).
(8) The Bank's requirements for funding revolving loan funds, if adopted by the Bank pursuant to § 1291.29;
(9) The Bank's requirements for funding loan pools, if adopted by the Bank pursuant to § 1291.30;
(10) The Bank's requirements for monitoring under its General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs pursuant to §§ 1291.50 and 1291.51.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2) Each Bank shall solicit nominations for membership on the Advisory Council from community and not-for-profit organizations pursuant to a nomination process that is as broad
(3) The Bank's board of directors shall appoint Advisory Council members from a diverse range of organizations so that representatives of no one group constitute an undue proportion of the membership of the Advisory Council, giving consideration to the size of the Bank's district and the diversity of low- and moderate-income housing and community lending needs and activities within the district.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(ii) The Advisory Council's advice shall include recommendations on:
(A) The Bank's Targeted Community Lending Plan, and any amendments thereto, adopted by the Bank pursuant to 12 CFR 1290.6(a)(5)(iii);
(B) The amount of AHP funds to be allocated to the Bank's General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds, and the amount of AHP funds to be allocated to any Bank Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, including the apportionment of the funds between first-time homebuyers and households for owner-occupied rehabilitation under the one-third allocation requirement in § 1291.12(b);
(C) The AHP Implementation Plan and any subsequent amendments thereto;
(D) The Bank's scoring criteria, related definitions, and any additional optional district eligibility requirements for the Bank's General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds; and
(E) The eligibility requirements and any priority criteria for any Bank Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.
(2)
(3)
(ii) Within 30 days after the date the Advisory Council's annual analysis is submitted to FHFA, the Bank shall publish the analysis on its publicly available website.
(e)
(f)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(4)
(ii)
(B)
(5)
(ii)
(6)
(ii)
(7)
(i) The project's rental units, or applicable portion thereof, must remain occupied by and affordable for households with incomes at or below the levels committed to be served in the approved AHP application for the duration of the retention period;
(ii) The Bank and its designee is to be given notice of any sale, transfer, assignment of title or deed, or refinancing of the project during the retention period;
(iii) In the case of a sale, transfer, assignment of title or deed, or refinancing of the project by the owner during the retention period, the full amount of the AHP subsidy received by the owner shall be repaid to the Bank, unless:
(A) The project continues to be subject to a deed restriction or other legally enforceable retention agreement or mechanism incorporating the income-eligibility and affordability restrictions committed to in the approved AHP application for the duration of the retention period; or
(B) If authorized by the Bank, in its discretion, the households are relocated, due to the exercise of eminent domain, or for expansion of housing or services, to another property that is made subject to a deed restriction or other legally enforceable retention agreement or mechanism incorporating the income-eligibility and affordability restrictions committed to in the approved AHP application for the remainder of the retention period; and
(iv) The income-eligibility and affordability restrictions applicable to the project shall terminate after any foreclosure.
(8)
(9)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) Repay to the Bank that portion of the advance used to make the loan or loans to the project, and be subject to a fee imposed by the Bank sufficient to compensate the Bank for any economic loss the Bank experiences in reinvesting the repaid amount at a rate of return below the cost of funds originally used by the Bank to calculate the interest rate subsidy incorporated in the advance; or
(B) Continue to maintain the advance outstanding, subject to the Bank resetting the interest rate on that portion of the advance used to make the loan or loans to the project to a rate equal to the cost of funds originally used by the Bank to calculate the interest rate subsidy incorporated in the advance.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(a)
(2) If a Bank director or employee, or such person's family member, has a financial interest in, or is a director, officer, or employee of an organization involved in, an AHP project such that he or she is subject to the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, such person shall not participate in or attempt to influence decisions by the Bank regarding the evaluation, approval, funding, monitoring, or any remedial process for such project.
(b)
(2) If an Advisory Council member, or such person's family member, has a financial interest in, or is a director, officer, or employee of an organization involved in, an AHP project such that he or she is subject to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, such person shall not participate in or attempt to influence decisions by the Bank regarding the approval for such project.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(i) One Targeted Fund;
(ii) Two Targeted Funds to be administered concurrently, provided that the Bank administered at least one Targeted Fund in any preceding year; or
(iii) Three Targeted Funds to be administered concurrently, provided that the Bank administered at least two Targeted Funds in any preceding year.
(c)
(2) A Bank may not adopt additional eligibility requirements for its General Fund and any Targeted Funds except as specifically authorized in this part.
(a)
(b)
(ii)
(A) Provide audited financial statements that its operations are consistent with sound business practices; and
(B) Demonstrate the ability to re-lend AHP subsidy repayments on a timely basis and track the use of the AHP subsidy.
(iii)
(A) Provide evidence of sound asset/liability management practices;
(B) Provide audited financial statements that its operations are consistent with sound business practices; and
(C) Demonstrate the ability to track the use of the AHP subsidy.
(a)
(b)
(1) Determine that the proposed AHP project meets the eligibility requirements of this part; and
(2) Evaluate the application pursuant to the scoring methodology adopted by the Bank pursuant to § 1291.25.
(c)
Projects receiving AHP subsidies pursuant to a Bank's General Fund and any Bank Targeted Funds must meet the following eligibility requirements:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(B) In the case of a rental project, a Bank shall review both the project's development budget and operating pro forma in determining its need for AHP subsidy. Where the project's uses of funds exceed its sources of funds, the difference demonstrates a funding gap and provides support for the project's need for AHP subsidy, provided that the project's cash flow and costs are reasonable. This is the maximum amount of AHP subsidy that the project may receive.
(C) A Bank, in its discretion, may permit a project's sources of funds to include or exclude the estimated market value of in-kind donations and voluntary professional labor or services (excluding the value of sweat equity), provided that the project's uses of funds also include or exclude, respectively, the value of such estimates.
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(B) For purposes of determining the reasonableness of a developer's fee for a project as a percentage of total development costs, a Bank may, in its discretion, include estimates of the market value of in-kind donations and volunteer professional labor or services (excluding the value of sweat equity) committed to the project as part of the total development costs.
(ii)
(5)
(6)
(i) Such costs are incurred in connection with counseling of homebuyers who actually purchase an AHP-assisted unit; and
(ii) The cost of the counseling has not been covered by another funding source, including the member.
(7)
(8)
(ii) Where an AHP subsidized advance is provided to a project, the net present value of the interest revenue foregone from making a subsidized advance at a rate below the Bank's cost of funds shall be determined as of the earlier of the date of disbursement of the
(b)
(1)
(i) The project is in financial distress that cannot be remedied through a project modification pursuant to § 1291.27;
(ii) The prepayment of the subsidized advance is necessary to retain the project's affordability and income targeting commitments;
(iii) Subsequent to such prepayment, the project will continue to comply with the terms of the approved AHP application and the requirements of this part for the duration of the original retention period;
(iv) Any unused AHP subsidy is returned to the Bank and made available for other AHP projects; and
(v) The amount of AHP subsidy used for the prepayment fee may not exceed the amount of the member's prepayment fee to the Bank;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The Bank shall consult with its Advisory Council prior to adoption of its policy;
(2) The Bank shall adopt the policy in advance of an AHP funding period and include it in its AHP Implementation Plan;
(3) The policy shall include the methodology used to break a scoring tie, which may differ for each Fund, and which shall be drawn from the particular Fund's scoring criteria adopted in the Bank's AHP Implementation Plan;
(4) The scoring tie-breaker methodology shall be reasonable, transparent, verifiable, and impartial;
(5) The scoring tie-breaker methodology shall be used solely to break a scoring tie and may not affect the eligibility of the applications, including financial feasibility, or their scores and resultant rankings;
(6) The Bank shall approve a tied application as an alternate pursuant to § 1291.26(c) if the application does not prevail under the scoring tie-breaker methodology, or if the application is tied with another application but requested more subsidy than the amount of AHP funds that remain to be awarded; and
(7) The Bank shall document in writing its analysis and results for each use of the scoring tie-breaker methodology.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(1) The Bank first requested that the project cure any noncompliance and the cure was not successful after a reasonable period of time;
(2) The project, incorporating any such changes, would meet the eligibility requirements of this part;
(3) The application, as reflective of such changes, continues to score as high as the lowest ranking alternate that was approved for funding by the Bank in the AHP funding period in which the application was originally scored and approved by the Bank; and
(4) There is good cause for the modification, which may not be solely remediation of noncompliance, and the analysis and justification for the modification are documented by the Bank in writing.
(b)
(2)
(a)
(2) If an institution with an approved application for AHP subsidy loses its membership in a Bank, the Bank may disburse AHP subsidies to a member of such Bank to which the institution has transferred its obligations under the approved AHP application, or the Bank may disburse AHP subsidies through another Bank to a member of that Bank that has assumed the institution's obligations under the approved AHP application.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Pursuant to written policies established by a Bank's board of directors after consultation with its Advisory Council, a Bank, in its discretion, may provide AHP direct subsidy under its General Fund or any Bank Targeted Funds for eligible projects and households involving both the lending of the subsidy and subsequent lending of subsidy principal and interest repayments by a revolving loan fund, provided the following requirements are met:
(a)
(2) The information in the application shall be sufficient for the Bank to:
(
(ii) Evaluate the criteria for the initial lending of the subsidy, and the specific proposed project if applicable, pursuant to the scoring methodology established by the Bank pursuant to § 1291.25(a).
(b)
(c)
(2) If a project funded under this paragraph (c) is in noncompliance with the commitments in the approved AHP application, or is sold or refinanced prior to the end of the applicable AHP retention period, the required amount of AHP subsidy shall be repaid to the revolving loan fund in accordance with §§ 1291.15(a)(8) and 1291.60, and the revolving loan fund shall re-lend such repaid subsidy, excluding the amounts of AHP subsidy principal already repaid to the revolving loan fund, to another project meeting the initial lending requirements of this paragraph (c) for the remainder of the retention period.
(d)
(2) The revolving loan fund's subsequent lending of AHP subsidy principal and interest repayments shall be for the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of owner-occupied projects for households with incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income for the area, or of rental projects where at least 20 percent of the units are occupied by and affordable for households with incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income for the area, and shall meet all other eligibility requirements of this paragraph (d).
(3) A Bank may, in its discretion, require the revolving loan fund's subsequent lending of subsidy principal and interest repayments to be subject to retention period, monitoring, and recapture requirements for rental projects, as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
(e)
Pursuant to written policies established by a Bank's board of directors after consultation with its Advisory Council, a Bank, in its discretion, may provide AHP subsidy under its General Fund or any Bank Targeted Funds for the origination of first mortgage or rehabilitation loans with subsidized interest rates to AHP-eligible households through a purchase commitment by an entity that will purchase and pool the loans, provided the following requirements are met:
(a)
(b)
(2) As an alternative to using a forward commitment, the loan pool sponsor may purchase an initial round of loans that were not originated pursuant to an AHP-specific forward commitment, provided that the entities from which the loans were purchased are required to use the proceeds from the initial loan purchases within time limits on the use of the AHP subsidy as specified by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan and the Bank's agreement with the loan pool sponsor, which shall not exceed 1 year from the date of approval of the AHP application. The proceeds shall be used by such entities to assist households that are income-eligible under the approved AHP application during subsequent rounds of lending, and such assistance shall be provided in the form of a below-market AHP-subsidized interest rate as specified in the approved AHP application.
(c) Each AHP-assisted rental project receiving AHP direct subsidy or a subsidized advance shall be subject to the requirements of §§ 1291.15, 1291.50(a), and 1291.60, respectively.
(d) Where AHP direct subsidy is being used to buy down the interest rate of a loan or loans from a member or other party, the loan pool sponsor shall use the full amount of the AHP direct subsidy to buy down the interest rate on a permanent basis at the time of closing on such loan or loans.
A Bank may establish, in its discretion, one or more Homeownership Set-Aside Programs pursuant to the requirements of this part. The Bank's analyses supporting establishment of such programs shall be included in its Targeted Community Lending Plan, as provided in § 1291.13(a).
A Bank shall accept applications for AHP direct subsidy under its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs only from institutions that are members of the Bank at the time the application is submitted to the Bank.
A Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Programs shall meet the eligibility requirements set forth in this section. A
(a)
(b)
(1) Have incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income for the area at the time the household is accepted for enrollment by the member in the Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Program, with such time of enrollment by the member defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan;
(2) Complete a homebuyer or homeowner counseling program provided by, or based on one provided by, an organization experienced in homebuyer or homeowner counseling, in the case of households that are first-time homebuyers; and
(3) Are first-time homebuyers or households receiving AHP subsidy for the purpose of owner-occupied rehabilitation, in the case of households receiving subsidy pursuant to the one-third set-aside funding allocation requirement in § 1291.12(b), and meet such other eligibility criteria that may be established by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, such as a matching funds requirement, homebuyer or homeowner counseling requirement for households that are not first-time homebuyers, or criteria that give priority for the purchase or rehabilitation of housing in particular areas or as part of a disaster relief effort.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Such costs are incurred in connection with counseling of homebuyers who actually purchase an AHP-assisted unit; and
(2) The cost of the counseling has not been covered by another funding source, including the member.
(h)
A Bank shall approve applications for AHP direct subsidy in accordance with the Bank's criteria governing the allocation of funds.
(a)
(2) If an institution with an approved application for AHP direct subsidy loses its membership in a Bank, the Bank may disburse AHP direct subsidies to a member of such Bank to which the institution has transferred its obligations under the approved AHP application, or the Bank may disburse AHP direct subsidies through another Bank to a member of that Bank that has assumed the institution's obligations under the approved AHP application.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1)
(i) Land or units donated or conveyed by the federal government or any agency or instrumentality thereof; or
(ii) Land or units donated or conveyed by any other party for an amount significantly below the fair market value of the property, as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(ii)
(A) Whether the Bank has failed to comply with § 1291.48; and
(B) Whether, taking into consideration market and economic conditions and the financial condition of the Bank, compliance with § 1291.48 was feasible.
(a)
(1)
(i) The project is making satisfactory progress towards completion, in compliance with the commitments made in the approved AHP application, Bank policies, and the requirements of this part; and
(ii) Following completion of the project, satisfactory progress is being made towards occupancy of the project by eligible households.
(2)
(
(ii) The household incomes and rents comply with the income targeting and rent commitments made in the approved AHP application;
(iii) The project's actual costs were reasonable in accordance with the Bank's project cost guidelines, and the AHP subsidies were necessary for the completion of the project as currently structured, as determined pursuant to § 1291.24(a)(4);
(iv) Each rental project is subject to an AHP retention agreement that meets the requirements of § 1291.15(a)(7); and
(v) The services and activities committed in the approved AHP application have been provided in connection with the project.
(3)
(i) Bank review within a reasonable period of time after project completion of back-up project documentation regarding household incomes and rents (not including the rent roll) maintained by the project sponsor or owner, except for projects that received funds from other federal, state or local government entities whose programs meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section as specified in separate FHFA guidance, or projects that have also been allocated federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits; and
(ii) Maintenance and Bank review of other project documentation in the Bank's discretion.
(4)
(b)
(1) The compliance profiles regarding income targeting, rent, and retention period requirements of the AHP and the other programs are substantively equivalent;
(2) The entity has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate its ability to monitor the project;
(3) The entity agrees to provide reports to the Bank on the project's incomes and rents for the full 15-year AHP retention period; and
(4) The Bank reviews the reports from the monitoring entity to confirm that they comply with the Bank's monitoring policies.
(c)
(1)
(i) Bank review of annual certifications by project sponsors or owners to the Bank that household incomes and rents are in compliance with the commitments made in the approved AHP application during the AHP 15-year retention period, along with information on the ongoing financial viability of the project, including whether the project is current on its property taxes and loan payments, its vacancy rate, and whether it is in compliance with its commitments to other funding sources;
(ii) Bank review of back-up project documentation regarding household incomes and rents, including the rent rolls, maintained by the project sponsor or owner, except for projects that also received funds from other federal, state or local government entities whose programs meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section as specified in separate FHFA guidance, or projects that have also been allocated federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), provided that the Bank shall review any notices received from project sponsors or owners pursuant to § 1291.15(a)(5)(ii) that an AHP project is in noncompliance with LIHTC income-targeting or rent requirements during the AHP 15-year retention period; and
(iii) Maintenance and Bank review of other project documentation in the Banks' discretion.
(2)
(ii)
(d)
(a)
(1) The AHP subsidy was provided to households meeting all applicable eligibility requirements in § 1291.42(b) and the Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Program policies; and
(2) All other applicable eligibility requirements in § 1291.42 and the Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Program policies are met.
(b)
(1) Bank review of certifications by members to the Bank, prior to disbursement of the AHP subsidy, that the subsidy will be provided in compliance with all applicable eligibility requirements in § 1291.42;
(2) Bank review of back-up documentation regarding household incomes maintained by the member; and
(3) Maintenance and Bank review of other documentation in the Bank's discretion.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(ii) The settlement with the project sponsor or owner must be supported by sufficient documentation showing that the sum agreed to be repaid under the settlement is reasonably justified, based on the facts and circumstances of the noncompliance, including any factors in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section that were considered in reaching the settlement.
If a member uses AHP subsidy for purposes other than those committed to in the AHP application or the requirements of this part, the Bank shall recover from the member the amount of subsidy used for such impermissible purposes.
(a)
(b)
(1) The Bank has failed to reimburse its AHP fund as required under paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) The Bank has failed to recover the full amount of AHP subsidy due from a project sponsor, project owner or member pursuant to the requirements of §§ 1291.60 and 1291.61, and has not shown that such failure is reasonably justified, considering factors such as those in § 1291.60(c)(2)(i).
(a)
(b)
Amounts of AHP subsidy, including any interest, repaid to a Bank pursuant to this part shall be made available by the Bank for other AHP-eligible projects or households.
If the Director determines, pursuant to § 1291.49, that a Bank has failed to comply with an outcome requirement in § 1291.48 and that compliance was feasible, the Director may require the Bank to take actions to remedy the noncompliance, which may include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
(a)
(1)
(i) Be feasible;
(ii) Be sufficiently specific to enable the Director to monitor compliance periodically;
(iii) Describe the specific actions that the Bank will take to comply with § 1291.48 for the next calendar year; and
(iv) Address any additional matters relevant to the plan as required, in writing, by the Director.
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
Without limitation on other remedies, FHFA, upon determining that a Bank has engaged in mismanagement of its Program, may designate another Bank to administer all or a portion of the first Bank's annual AHP contribution, for the benefit of the first Bank's members, under such terms and conditions as FHFA may prescribe.
(a)
(b)
(1) The next highest scoring AHP applications in the Bank's final funding period of the year for its General Fund first and then for any Targeted Funds established by the Bank;
(2) Pending applications for funds under the Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, if any; and
(3) Project modifications for AHP subsidy increases approved by the Bank pursuant to the requirements of this part.
(c)
| 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 |