| Page Range | 971-1172 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 1046 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 974 - Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment | |
| 83 FR 1027 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 1054 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule | |
| 83 FR 1093 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Fulton County, GA | |
| 83 FR 1013 - Guarantee Fee Rates for Guaranteed Loans for Fiscal Year 2018; Maximum Portion of Guarantee Authority Available for Fiscal Year 2018; Annual Renewal Fee for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 1025 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans | |
| 83 FR 1029 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 1030 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 1035 - Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age Meeting | |
| 83 FR 1036 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 1094 - Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance: The Eastern Iowa Airport, (CID) Cedar Rapids, IA | |
| 83 FR 1037 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 1092 - Designation of Abukar Ali Adan, aka Abukar Ali Aden, aka Sheikh Abukar, aka Ibrahim Afghan, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 1092 - Designation of Wanas al-Faqih as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 1093 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Muhammad al-Ghazali, aka Rashid, aka Muhammad Abd al-Karim al-Ghazali, aka Abu Hisham Mawari, aka Abu Hisham al-Mawari, aka Abu Sa'id, aka Abu Faris, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 1032 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 1033 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 1031 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 992 - Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Operation in the 3550-3650 MHz Band | |
| 83 FR 1025 - Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 83 FR 1015 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 41-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Quad/Graphics, Inc.-Chemical Research\Technology, (Offset and Gravure Publication Printing Ink), Hartford and Sussex, Wisconsin | |
| 83 FR 1021 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 1015 - Honey From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results of the Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 1017 - Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 1018 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 1023 - Welded Line Pipe From Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 1027 - National Estuarine Research Reserve System | |
| 83 FR 1096 - Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee January 16, 2018, public meeting | |
| 83 FR 1028 - Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel (SNAP) and Subcommittee Naval Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 1043 - Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in Calculating Interest on Overdue Accounts and Refunds on Customs Duties | |
| 83 FR 1028 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; The Title VI Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) Program Application | |
| 83 FR 1044 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Common Performance Reporting | |
| 83 FR 1038 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request Information Collection Request Title: Small Health Care Provider Quality Improvement Program, OMB No. 0915-0387-Revision. | |
| 83 FR 1092 - Notice of Determinations; Additional Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Beyond the Nile: Egypt and the Classical World” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 1091 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Alberto Savinio” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 1014 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 1084 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Forty-First Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis | |
| 83 FR 1029 - Public Meeting for EAC Standards Board | |
| 83 FR 992 - Civil Monetary Penalties-2018 Adjustment | |
| 83 FR 1045 - Postal Service Performance Report and Performance Plan | |
| 83 FR 1095 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 1045 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 83 FR 1079 - Guggenheim Credit Income Fund, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 1062 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the Western Asset Total Return ETF | |
| 83 FR 1058 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Risk Controls and Modify Rules 21.1, 21.10, and 21.17 in Connection With Technology Migration of Cboe Exchanges | |
| 83 FR 1046 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Procedures in the DTC Settlement Service Guide Relating to the Intra-Month Collection of Required Participants Fund Deposits | |
| 83 FR 1050 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Risk Controls and Modify Rules 21.1, 21.10, and 21.17 in Connection With Technology Migration of Cboe Exchanges | |
| 83 FR 1087 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Optional IEX Aggregate Risk Controls Mechanism | |
| 83 FR 1090 - Northern Lights Fund Trust and AlphaCore Capital, LLC | |
| 83 FR 1040 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 1041 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 1041 - Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records | |
| 83 FR 1042 - Center for Mental Health Services: Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 1034 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 1035 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 1034 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 1039 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, OMB No. 0906-0012-Revision | |
| 83 FR 984 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule | |
| 83 FR 971 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 1009 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Multi-Year Annual Catch Limits for the Finfish Stocks in the Monitored Stock Category | |
| 83 FR 985 - Oklahoma: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference | |
| 83 FR 1003 - Oklahoma: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference | |
| 83 FR 983 - Approval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Washoe Oxygenated Fuels Program | |
| 83 FR 997 - Approval of Iowa's Air Quality Implementation Plan; Muscatine Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area; Availability of Supplemental Information and Reopening of the Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 1003 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan Minor New Source Review | |
| 83 FR 1001 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District | |
| 83 FR 995 - Green & Secure Alternative Move Update Method Option | |
| 83 FR 980 - eInduction Option, Seamless Acceptance Program, and Full-Service Automation Option, Verification Standards | |
| 83 FR 1098 - Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 | |
| 83 FR 1013 - Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for Review | |
| 83 FR 1004 - Request for Information: Revisions to Personnel Regulations, Proficiency Testing Referral, Histocompatibility Regulations and Fee Regulations Under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) |
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Federal Aviation Administration
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, Feburary 01, 2018.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revises its regulations concerning payment or reimbursement for emergency treatment for non-service-connected conditions at non-VA facilities to implement the requirements of a recent court decision. Specifically, this rulemaking expands eligibility for payment or reimbursement to include veterans who receive partial payment from a health-plan contract for non-VA emergency treatment and establishes a corresponding reimbursement methodology. This rulemaking also expands the eligibility criteria for veterans to receive payment or reimbursement for emergency transportation associated with the emergency treatment, in order to ensure that veterans are adequately covered when emergency transportation is a necessary part of their non-VA emergency treatment.
Written comments may be submitted by email through
Joseph Duran, Director, Policy and Planning VHA Office of Community Care (10D1A1), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (303-370-1637). (This is not a toll-free number.)
38 U.S.C. 1725 authorizes VA to reimburse veterans for the reasonable value of emergency treatment for non-service connected conditions furnished in a non-VA facility, if certain criteria are met. One requirement is that the veteran must be personally liable for the emergency treatment. As originally enacted in 1999, the statute provided that a veteran is personally liable if the veteran “has no entitlement to care or services under a health-plan contract,” and “no other contractual or legal recourse against a third party that would, in part or in whole, extinguish such liability to the provider.” 38 U.S.C. 1725(b)(3)(B) and (C) (1999). VA interpreted that version of the statute as barring reimbursement for veterans with any coverage from either a health-plan contract or a third party because those veterans did not satisfy the requirement to have “no entitlement . . . under a health-plan contract” and “no other . . . recourse against a third party.”
In addition, the 1999 version of the statute distinguished “health-plan contract” and “third party” by separately defining them. 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(2)-(3)(1999).
On February 1, 2010, Congress enacted the Expansion of Veteran Eligibility for Reimbursement Act, Public Law 111-137 (2010 Act), which amended section 1725. The legislative history of the 2010 Act provided:
The Committee has learned that under current law the VA does not pay for emergency treatment for non-service connected conditions in non-VA facilities if the veteran has third-party insurance that pays any portion of the costs associated with such emergency treatment. This situation can inadvertently arise if a veteran has minimal health insurance coverage through a state-mandated automobile insurance policy. Consequently, if an emergency does occur, and the veteran has a policy containing such minimal coverage, the veteran may be responsible for essentially the full cost of emergency treatment. While some veterans are able to negotiate payment plans and debt forgiveness of a portion of their medical bills with the non-VA hospital where they received the emergency treatment, many veterans are without the financial resources to shoulder such a cost and are unaware that the VA would not be responsible for such emergency care. H.R. Rep. No. 111-55.
The 2010 Act amended section 1725 by striking the phrase “in part” from section 1725(b)(3)(C). It also removed state-mandated automobile insurance policies from the definition of “health-plan contract.” In chief, the effect of the 2010 amendments is that partial payment from a third party is not a bar to reimbursement under section 1725, assuming all of the other eligibility criteria are met; the third-party payment is only a bar to reimbursement if it fully extinguishes the veteran's personal liability. Thus, eligible veterans who receive only partial payment by the third party, including state-mandated automobile insurance, are eligible for VA payment or reimbursement of the unpaid portion of their emergency medical expenses, subject to the payment limitations added by that same law.
VA amended its regulations to comply with the 2010 Act. Relevant to this rulemaking, VA revised 38 CFR 17.1001(a)(5), 17.1002(g), and 17.1005(e) and (f). Section 17.1001(a)(5) was amended to remove state-mandated automobile insurance from the definition of “health-plan contract.” Section 17.1002(g) was amended to only prohibit reimbursement from VA if a third party extinguished the liability in whole, § 17.1005(e) was amended to establish a methodology to reimburse veterans when a third-party payment partially extinguished the veteran's liability, and § 17.1005(f) was promulgated to implement the limitation in 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(D) that VA may not reimburse any deductible, copayment, or similar payment that veterans owe to third parties. However, because the 2010 Act did not amend section 1725(b)(3)(B), pertaining to health-plan contracts, VA did not amend its corresponding regulation at § 17.1002(f) that bars reimbursement from VA if the veteran is entitled to either partial or full payment from a health-plan contract. Similarly, VA did not specify in § 17.1005(f) that it would not reimburse amounts for which the veteran is responsible under a health-plan contract because it was unnecessary to do so; consistent with VA's interpretation of the 2010 Act, reimbursement or payment continued to be barred if the veteran had coverage under a health-plan contract.
In
In so doing, the Court interpreted section 1725(b)(3)(B) to bar reimbursement only if a veteran's health-plan contract would wholly extinguish the veteran's liability. In other words, the Court interpreted the 2010 amendments relating to payment by a third party to also apply to section 1725(b)(3)(B) relating to payment by health-plan contracts.
To reach this conclusion, the Court gave particular weight to sections 1725(c)(4) and (f)(3), which, in the Court's words, “more broadly include health-plan contracts, including Medicare, in the category of a `third party.' ” In addition, the Court reasoned that its interpretation was consistent with the overall purpose of section 1725, as amended,
First, this interim final rule revises 38 CFR 17.1002(f). Section 17.1002 establishes the criteria that must be met for veterans to receive payment or reimbursement under 38 U.S.C. 1725 for emergency treatment for non-service- connected conditions at non-VA facilities. Specifically, current § 17.1002(f) bars reimbursement unless the veteran has, “no coverage under a health-plan contract for payment or reimbursement, in whole or in part, for the emergency treatment.” This rule revises the regulation to state that a veteran may be eligible for payment or reimbursement as long as the veteran does not have coverage under a health-plan contract that will fully extinguish the veteran's liability to the provider. This change reflects the Court's interpretation that partial coverage for the emergency treatment under a veteran's health-plan contract is not a bar to reimbursement under section 1725. Reimbursement is only barred if coverage under the health-plan contract wholly extinguishes the veteran's liability. We believe that this change comports with the holding of
To clarify the applicability of this regulation change, judicial decisions invalidating a statute or regulation, or VA's interpretation of a statute or regulation, cannot affect prior final VA decisions.
Second, this interim final rule revises 38 CFR 17.1003 related to emergency transportation to be consistent with our interpretation that the exercise of VA's authority under 38 U.S.C. 1725 should result in veterans' liability to providers of emergency treatment being extinguished, except for deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other similar payments owed by the veteran for which VA is barred from reimbursing under 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(D), as described above. Although section 1725 does not specifically authorize payment for emergency transportation, it authorizes payment for “emergency treatment” as defined in section 1725(f)(1). VA has interpreted the phrase “emergency treatment” in section 1725(f)(1) to include emergency transportation if the transportation is provided as part of the emergency medical treatment administered at the non-VA facility. Current § 17.1003 authorizes VA to provide payment or reimbursement under 38 U.S.C. 1725 for ambulance services (including air ambulance services) for transporting a veteran to a non-VA facility if certain criteria are met. We amend § 17.1003(a), (c), and (d) and create a new paragraph (e) for the following reasons.
The current regulation states that VA will pay for emergency transportation if “[p]ayment or reimbursement is authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1725 for emergency treatment provided at [a non-VA] facility (or payment or reimbursement could have been authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1725 for emergency treatment if death had not occurred before emergency treatment could be provided).” We have historically interpreted this paragraph to authorize reimbursement for emergency transportation only if VA approves and makes actual payment on the claim for the emergency treatment provided at the non-VA facility. The reason for this interpretation was that the emergency transportation was considered part of (not apart or distinct from) the claim for emergency treatment. If VA reimbursement was not authorized for the emergency treatment, reimbursement was not authorized separately for the emergency transportation (in other words, payment on the main treatment claim was essentially a condition precedent).
Under current § 17.1003(a), this results in denials of claims for reimbursement for the costs of emergency transportation when a third-party payment satisfies the claim for emergency medical treatment, despite the transportation claim meeting the other criteria for reimbursement by VA under 38 U.S.C. 1725. So if the veteran does not have any remaining liability for the treatment provided at the non-VA facility due to satisfaction of the treatment claim by a third party, VA denies that veteran's claim for reimbursement of the emergency treatment and, in turn, reimbursement is not be authorized for their emergency transportation. In practice then, application of VA's existing regulations is in tension with VA's view that emergency transportation is part of emergency treatment. If VA's sole basis to deny a transportation claim is satisfaction by a third party of the related emergency treatment claim, even if that transportation claim meets all of the other requirements for reimbursement under 38 U.S.C. 1725, VA is, in effect, treating the emergency transportation claim differently than the related emergency treatment claim.
To address this, we now revise § 17.1003(a). As amended, § 17.1003(a) authorizes reimbursement for emergency transportation even if the veteran is ineligible to receive
Therefore, we amend § 17.1003(a) by retaining the general criteria that payment or reimbursement must be authorized under section 1725 for emergency treatment provided at a non-VA facility, but we remove the parenthetical and instead list out the two exceptions for when payment does not have to be authorized in order for the veteran to be eligible for reimbursement: Paragraph (a)(1) says that payment does not have to be authorized for the emergency treatment if the veteran has no remaining liability for the emergency treatment because prior payment by non-VA, third party, sources extinguished the veteran's liability, and paragraph (a)(2) contains the language in the current parenthetical that authorization is not required if death occurred prior to when the treatment could have been provided.
While not directly compelled by the Court's decision, this interim final rule also amends paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 17.1003. These changes are necessitated by the Court's holding when read in concert with VA's longstanding unchanged regulatory interpretation that emergency transportation is an integral part of emergency treatment, as discussed above. Otherwise, current § 17.1003 would operate in a manner that counteracts the changes to § 17.1002(f) made by this rulemaking. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are therefore revised to allow veterans to receive reimbursement or payment for emergency transportation even if they receive partial payment under a health-plan contract or from a third party for the emergency transportation. We revise paragraph (c) to state that a veteran may be eligible for payment or reimbursement if the veteran does not have coverage under a health-plan contract that will fully extinguish the veteran's liability to the provider. Similarly, we revise paragraph (d) by stating that the veteran may be eligible if the veteran has no contractual or legal recourse against a third party that could reasonably be pursued for the purpose of fully extinguishing the veteran's liability to the provider.
We also amend § 17.1003 by creating a new paragraph (e). Paragraph (e) states separately the requirement that was formerly in paragraph (c) that to be eligible for reimbursement or payment for emergency transportation, the veteran cannot be eligible for reimbursement for emergency treatment under 38 U.S.C. 1728. This requirement was moved for clarity so that each distinct requirement is located in a separate paragraph.
Third, this interim final rule revises § 17.1005 pertaining to the payment methodologies and limitations used to calculate payment and reimbursement for claims filed under section 1725. Currently, § 17.1005(e) sets forth VA's payment methodology when a veteran has contractual or legal recourse against a third party whose payment only partially extinguishes the veteran's liability to the provider of emergency treatment. This provision was originally drafted to address only third party situations described in section 1725(b)(2)(C), as interpreted before the Court decision. If VA applies the methodology in current § 17.1005(e) to claims involving partial payments under a health-plan contract, it is likely that partial payment under a veteran's health-plan contract will exceed the maximum amount that VA can pay based on the current payment limitation. (Section 1725(c)(1) requires VA to establish the maximum amount that can be paid on claims under section 1725(a); for eligible claims where a third party has already or will make partial payment, the law still requires the VA payment not to exceed that maximum amount.) For this reason, these veterans would in most cases be liable to the provider for the remaining charges.
We underscore that the payment limitation in § 17.1005 was derived based on an understanding of how payers in the health care industry establish payment rates and then VA deliberately reduced the maximum payable amount to reflect Congress' original purpose in enacting section 1725(c)(1), ensuring that providers had incentive to seek other sources of payment before pursuing payment from the government. The limitation, which remains today, was not intended to apply to claims involving partial payments made under a health-plan contract because current § 17.1002(f) bars reimbursement in that circumstance. This is why partial payments made under a health-plan contract will exceed VA's current maximum payment limitation and why applying the current maximum in all instances would result in VA not making payments in most cases where there is payment under a health-plan contract. Applying the current maximum in all cases would thus be at cross purposes with the other proposed amendments requiring VA to exercise its authority under 38 U.S.C. 1725 when there is partial payment by a health-plan contract.
(This is not to say that this cannot, or has not, occurred in connection with claims involving partial payment by a third party other than a health-plan contract. In those cases, however, the amount of the partial payment typically does not exceed the amount that VA can pay under the statute and § 17.1005(e),
VA believes that claims properly authorized for payment or reimbursement under 38 U.S.C. 1725 should invariably extinguish the veterans' liability to the provider, aside from any deductibles, copayments, or other similar payments owed by the veteran to a third party or under a health-plan contract as required by law. This includes claims where partial payment is made by a third-party under a health-plan contract. This is why amending the methodology in § 17.1005(e) to ensure VA can make a payment on claims involving partial payment under a health-plan contract is an essential logical outgrowth of the Court's decision and consistent with the other amendments made by this rulemaking. Otherwise, this rulemaking will merely amend § 17.1002(f), in accordance with the Court decision, without providing an effective mechanism to ensure its complete, successful, timely, and practical application. As explained below, any
We revise paragraph (a) and remove paragraphs (e) and (f) so that paragraph (a) now addresses, in one place, all reimbursement and payment methodologies applicable to claims approved under section 1725.
As revised, paragraph (a)(1) establishes the payment methodology to be used when VA is the sole payer on the claim. This includes situations when a veteran does not have coverage for the treatment under a health-plan contract and does not have any other legal or contractual recourse against a third party for payment of the emergency treatment expenses. Historically, this payment methodology was established in paragraph (a) and provided that VA would pay the lesser of the amount for which the veteran is personally liable or 70 percent of the amount under the applicable Medicare fee schedule rate, an amount that VA and Congress believed would ensure providers still had sufficient incentive to pursue reimbursement from other liable parties before seeking reimbursement from VA. This paragraph is revised merely to clarify that it is applicable when the veteran is the sole payer and is not eligible to receive partial payment from a third party, to include under a health-plan contract. Paragraph (a)(1) now states that where an eligible veteran has personal liability to a provider of emergency treatment and has no contractual or legal recourse against a third party, to include under a health-plan contract, VA will pay the lesser of the amount for which the veteran is personally liable or 70 percent of the applicable Medicare fee schedule rate.
New paragraph (a)(2) applies in cases where VA will be the secondary payer because the veteran is entitled to partial payment under a health-plan contract or has other legal or contractual recourse against a third party that results in partial payment of the emergency treatment costs. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires VA to pay according to the current methodology, which is the difference between the amount VA would have paid under paragraph (a)(1) for the cost of the emergency treatment and the amount paid or payable by the third party. However, that provision will apply only when the amount calculated under paragraph (a)(2)(i) is greater than zero, meaning that VA is authorized to make a payment to extinguish the veteran's liability. If the payment amount calculated under paragraph (a)(2)(i) would be zero and the veteran has remaining liability to the provider, VA is adopting an alternative method to ensure we can make payment and extinguish each veteran's personal liability. If the amount paid under paragraph (a)(2)(i) would be zero, therefore, the payment method in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) will apply. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) requires VA to pay the lesser of the remainder of the veteran's personal liability after payment is made by the third party (or health-plan contract) or 70 percent of the applicable Medicare fee schedule amount for the care provided. Similar to paragraph (a)(1), if the veteran's remaining liability under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is less than the 70 percent of the applicable Medicare fee schedule amount, VA's payment will equal the amount of the veteran's liability, and the veteran will have no personal liability for the treatment expenses. If the lesser amount is the applicable Medicare rate, VA will pay that rate, even if the amount billed by the provider is higher, and acceptance of the VA payment by the provider will extinguish the remainder of the veteran's liability. This methodology sets an appropriate “cap” on VA's payment to ensure providers have sufficient incentive to pursue the primary sources of payment while also ensuring that VA has an opportunity to make a payment which, if accepted by the provider, extinguishes the veteran's liability. This is consistent with section 1725(a)(1), which requires VA to reimburse a veteran for the reasonable value of the emergency treatment furnished to the veteran, and section 1725(c)(1)(A), which requires VA to establish the maximum amount payable under subsection (a); the application of the Medicare fee schedule represents the Federal government's standard for what constitutes appropriate payment amounts under the law.
Paragraph (a)(3) establishes an alternative methodology to use when there is no applicable Medicare Fee Schedule rate for the emergency services provided. In such cases, we will use the amount already established in our own fee schedule, under 38 CFR 17.56(a)(2)(i)(B). This is necessary to ensure that all potential emergency services are covered by this rule.
Paragraph (a)(4) is similar to current paragraph (e)(3). It states that the provider will consider payments under this section as payment in full and extinguish the veteran's liability to the provider. In other words, if the provider accepts and does not timely refund VA's payment, under either paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3), the provider must consider the payment as payment in full and the provider cannot submit additional charges to the veteran for payment. 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(C). In addition, paragraph (a)(4) includes a parenthetical that explains that neither the absence of a contract or agreement between the Secretary and the provider nor any provision of a contract, agreement, or assignment to the contrary shall operate to modify, limit, or negate the requirement in the paragraph. The ability of the provider to reject and refund VA payment within 30 days from the date of receipt and the parenthetical at the end of the paragraph are both included in order to clarify the rights and responsibilities under this paragraph which are established in section 1725(c)(3).
Paragraph (a)(5) restates current paragraph (f), clarifying that VA will not reimburse a claimant under this section for any deductible, copayment, coinsurance, or similar payment that the veteran owes the third party or is obligated to pay under a health-plan contract. This is consistent with 38 U.S.C. 1725(c)(4)(D), which, as noted above prohibits VA from reimbursing a veteran for any copayment or similar payment that the veteran owes a third party or for which the veteran is responsible under a health-plan contract.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this interim final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has concluded that there is good cause to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment and to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. As explained above, in a precedential decision, the Court invalidated 38 CFR 17.1002(f), holding that partial payment from a health-plan contract was not a bar to reimbursement by VA for emergency treatment rendered for a non-service-connected condition at a non-VA facility. This means VA is required to process all pending, non-
VA initially disagreed with the Court's decision. It unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the decision in 2016 and ultimately the Government appealed the Court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Court of Appeals). At the start of VA's efforts to obtain reversal of the decision in 2016, VA necessarily starting holding in abeyance all affected claims. As of September 29, 2017, VA is holding almost 822,000.
While the appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, VA made the decision in 2017 to withdraw its appeal and to proceed with rulemaking and then the processing of claims being held in abeyance. The Government's appeal unavoidably delayed processing of these claims, and the additional time associated with a public comment period would cause further delay, which VA believes would cause hardship to veterans and is contrary to the public interest.
As explained above, VA's current payment methodology would typically result in partial payments under health-plan contracts exceeding VA's maximum allowable amount, leaving many, if not most, veterans' still financially liable to their providers for the remaining costs of their emergency treatment. Merely revising § 17.1002(f) to implement the Court decision without, at the same time, amending the payment methodology to avoid this undesired result would, for all practical purposes, result in unsound, ineffective, incomplete rulemaking. We would provide the right to payment without the means by which to achieve the goal in practice. Public interest therefore compels concomitant revisions be made to the payment methodology.
Similarly, as explained above, under current regulations, there are circumstances wherein VA must deny otherwise eligible claims for reimbursement solely because of satisfaction of the related treatment claim by a third-party payer. VA believes this is inconsistent with our interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 1725, particularly our view that emergency transportation is part and parcel of emergency treatment, and VA believes that failing to remedy that would be contrary to the public interest because it would also result in veterans receiving no reimbursement, causing financial hardship for veterans.
During recent confirmation hearings for the Secretary of the Department, Senator Rounds expressed frustration that VA had not originally complied with the amendments to section 1725 made by the Emergency Care Fairness Act (ECFA) (2010), and he criticized VA for waiting for 6 years until it received the adverse Court decision to change its interpretation of section 1725 to accord with the Congressional drafters original intent. See Congressional Record, November 30, 2016, pages S6609-S6610. As part of his comments, the Senator noted that most affected by VA's failure to implement the ECFA amendments as originally intended (and confirmed by the Court decision) mostly affected elderly veterans, many of whom live on fixed incomes and have limited financial resources to pay medical bills.
Even before this, in December 2016, Senator Rounds and 21 other Senators wrote the Department expressing these same concerns, with the additional concern that these veteran-claimants may not seek needed care in the future out of fear of incurring additional medical bills.
In addition, the public record,
For these reasons, good cause exists to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment and to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. Thus, the Secretary issues this rule as an interim final rule. VA will consider and address comments that are received within 60 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the
This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. It will not directly affect any small entities as they are defined under the Act. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this interim final rule will be exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined and OMB has determined to be an economically significant regulatory action because it will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.005, Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 14, 2017, for publication.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
(f) The veteran does not have coverage under a health-plan contract that would fully extinguish the medical liability for the emergency treatment (this condition cannot be met if the veteran has coverage under a health-plan contract but payment is barred because of a failure by the veteran or the provider to comply with the provisions of that health-plan contract,
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Payment or reimbursement is authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1725 for emergency treatment provided at a non-VA facility, or payment or reimbursement would have been authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1725 for emergency treatment had:
(1) The veteran's personal liability for the emergency treatment not been fully extinguished by payment by a third party, including under a health-plan contract; or
(2) Death had not occurred before emergency treatment could be provided;
(c) The veteran does not have coverage under a health-plan contract that would fully extinguish the medical liability for the emergency transportation (this condition is not met if the veteran has coverage under a health-plan contract but payment is barred because of a failure by the veteran or the provider to comply with the provisions of that health-plan contract);
(d) If the condition for which the emergency transportation was furnished was caused by an accident or work-related injury, the claimant has exhausted without success all claims and remedies reasonably available to the veteran or provider against a third party for payment of such transportation; and the veteran has no contractual or legal recourse against a third party that could reasonably be pursued for the purpose of fully extinguishing the veteran's liability to the provider; and
(e) If the veteran is not eligible for reimbursement for any emergency treatment expenses under 38 U.S.C. 1728.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Payment or reimbursement for emergency treatment (including emergency transportation) under 38 U.S.C. 1725 will be calculated as follows:
(1) If an eligible veteran has personal liability to a provider of emergency treatment and no contractual or legal recourse against a third party, including under a health-plan contract, VA will pay the lesser of the amount for which the veteran is personally liable or 70 percent of the applicable Medicare fee schedule amount for such treatment.
(2) If an eligible veteran has personal liability to a provider of emergency treatment after payment by a third party, including under a health-plan contract, VA will pay:
(i) The difference between the amount VA would have paid under paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the cost of the emergency treatment and the amount paid (or payable) by the third party, if that amount would be greater than zero, or;
(ii) If applying paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section would result in no payment by VA, the lesser of the veteran's remaining personal liability after such third-party payment or 70 percent of the applicable Medicare fee schedule amount for such treatment.
(3) In the absence of a Medicare fee schedule rate for the emergency treatment, VA payment will be the lesser of the amount for which the veteran is personally liable or the amount calculated by the VA Fee Schedule in § 17.56 (a)(2)(i)(B).
(4) Unless rejected and refunded by the provider within 30 days from the date of receipt, the provider will consider VA's payment made under paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section as payment in full and extinguish the veteran's liability to the provider. (Neither the absence of a contract or agreement between the Secretary and the provider nor any provision of a contract, agreement, or assignment to the contrary shall operate to modify, limit, or negate the requirement in the preceding sentence.)
(5) VA will not reimburse a veteran under this section for any copayment, deductible, coinsurance, or similar payment that the veteran owes the third party or is obligated to pay under a health-plan contract.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending
Effective: March 5, 2018.
Heather Dyer at (207) 482-7217, or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
The Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 31, 2017, (82 FR 50346-50348) to add the verification standards for the eInduction Option, Seamless Acceptance Program, and Full-Service Automation Option, which included a 30-day comment period.
The Postal Service received 2 formal responses on the proposed rule, both of which included multiple comments.
In addition, the second responder had numerous comments that were determined to be beyond the scope of this final rule. The Postal Service will review and address these comments in a separate forum with the responder.
The Postal Service is amending DMM sections 705.20,
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
* * * For additional information on the eInduction Option see Publication 685,
The six eInduction option verification descriptions, error thresholds, and postage assessments, are provided in 20.5.1 through 20.5.6.
An Undocumented Container error occurs when a scanned IMcb is not found in an eDoc, or is included in an eDoc and associated to a postage statement in estimated (EST) status. Containers will be flagged as Undocumented 10 days after the scan unload date/time if no eDoc has been uploaded or if the postage statement is still in EST status. The threshold is 0%. All errors will be subject to an assessment amount of the average postage paid for each container mailed by the eDoc submitter CRID over the current invoice period to the eDoc submitter CRID or CRID tied to the MID contained within the IMcb.
All containers must be linked to a finalized postage statement in eInduction to verify payment. The error threshold is 0%. Payment Verification errors are logged when a scanned and accepted eInduction container is associated with a postage statement that is not in FIN or FPP status at the time of scanning. Containers above the error threshold will be subject to an assessment amount equal to the containers eDoc postage amount as indicated on the non-finalized postage statements. For Payment Errors logged on physical siblings of logical containers, the full postage of the logical container is charged to the first physical sibling container scanned. Any additional scans among other physical siblings will log errors, but will not result in an additional charge. Assessments will be logged against the eDoc submitter CRID.
eInduction requires IMcbs to remain unique for 45 days. The error threshold is 0.17%. Duplicate errors are logged when an IMcb is scanned and accepted during more than one FAST appointment in the previous 45 days. Duplicate Errors are not logged if the duplicate scans take place within 5 hours of the original container scan. Errors above the threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to the average postage paid for each container mailed by the eDoc submitter CRID over the invoice period.
Containers claiming a destination entry discount must be delivered to the correct entry locations per the active version of the Mail Direction File. The Mail Direction File is active at the beginning of the month and includes a 30 day grace period into the following month. The error threshold is 1.05%. Misshipped errors are logged when the container is scanned at an incorrect entry location, per the Mail Direction File. Errors over the threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to the difference between the eDoc postage claimed, and the correct postage amount for the container. For misshipped errors logged against physical siblings of logical containers, postage is recalculated on the logical container, and divided by the number of physical siblings. This amount is then applied to each physical sibling in error to the eDoc submitter CRID.
Pieces claiming a Zone Discount must be entered at the valid facility. The error threshold is 0.01%. Zone Discount errors are logged when one or more pieces on a container claim a lower entry zone than the zone calculated between the location where the container was entered, and the eDoc destination. Errors above the threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to the difference between the eDoc postage claimed, and the correct postage amount for the container. For containers claiming a non-numeric Zone Discount in the eDoc, correct postage amount is calculated using the piece rate for the Entry Discount that is valid at the actual entry point for the mail class, shape, weight, mail prep, and presort identified in the eDoc. For Zone Discount errors logged against physical siblings of logical containers, postage is recalculated on the logical container, and divided by the number of physical siblings. This amount is then applied to each physical sibling in error to the eDoc submitter CRID.
eInduction pieces are required to be entered at a valid facility when claiming a destination entry discount. The error threshold is 0.5%. EPD errors are logged when one or more pieces on a container claim an entry discount level that is not available at the location where the container was entered. Errors above threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to the difference between the eDoc postage claimed and the correct postage amount for the container. For EPD errors logged against physical siblings of logical containers, postage is recalculated on the logical container, and divided by the number of physical siblings. This amount is then applied to each physical sibling in error to the eDoc submitter CRID.
* * * For additional information, on the Seamless Acceptance Program see Publication 685,
The five seamless acceptance program verification descriptions, error thresholds, and postage assessments, are provided in 22.4.1 through 22.4.5.
An Undocumented error is logged when the IMb gathered during sampling or MPE scan cannot be linked to any eDoc submitted within the last 45 days. The error threshold is 0.3%. Pieces above the error threshold will be subject to an assessment amount equal to the average piece rate by mail class and CRID for the assessment month.
A valid delivery point must be provided in the piece IMb. The error threshold is 2%. Delivery Point errors are logged when the delivery point provided in the eDoc is either not valid, or contains a generic +4 information with an address record type that is not General Delivery. Errors above the threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to difference between the eDoc piece postage and correct postage amount.
A Nesting/Sortation error is logged when the piece scanned is nested in a different tray or bundle than the tray or bundle that was identified in the eDoc. The error threshold is 1%. Errors above this threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to the difference between the eDoc piece postage and the correct postage amount.
The Postage Adjustment Factor (PAF) is a method to apply an error rate determined from handheld scanner samplings to the entire population of mailings within a calendar month. PAF is calculated on a monthly basis and measures the difference between the correct postage and the postage paid, expressed as a ratio of the correct postage due to the sum of eDoc postage for the sampled pieces. General PAF is used for errors in Postage and Weight verifications. The General PAF threshold factor is 1.05 (5%). A mailer will only be subject to an assessment when the eDoc submitter has exceeded the PAF threshold in the current billing month and three or more times in the previous 11 billing months. The General PAF is applied to the total monthly eDoc postage for the eDoc submitter and assessments are issued to the eDoc submitter.
The Mail Characteristic, Postage Adjustment Factor (PAF), is used for errors in the processing category, mail class, nonprofit eligibility and content. The threshold factor is 1.05 (5%). A mailer will only be subject to an assessment when the eDoc submitter has exceeded the Mail Characteristic PAF threshold in the current billing month and three or more times in the previous 11 billing months. The Mail Characteristic PAF is applied at the eDoc Submitter CRID level and is calculated using the adjusted and eDoc postage attributed to the Mail Owner.
* * * For additional information on the full-service automation option see Publication 685,
The six full-service verification descriptions, error thresholds, and postage assessments, are provided in 23.6.1 through 23.6.6.
The MID is a six- or nine-digit code included in the Intelligent Mail barcode suite, allowing identification of the party responsible for a mailpiece, handling unit, or container. A valid MID is one that is registered within the Postal Service systems and provided in the eDoc. The error threshold is 2% for the piece, handling unit, and container level. Errors over the threshold will be subject to an assessment amount equal to the removal of the full-service discount claimed for each piece in error above the threshold.
The STID is a three-digit code included in the IMb for a mailpiece to provide mail class and service level. The error threshold is 2%. Errors over the threshold will be subject to an assessment amount equal to the removal of the full-service discount claimed for each piece in error above the threshold.
The By/For relationship recognizes the Mail Owner and Mail Service Provider in the eDoc. The error threshold is 5%. An error occurs when a valid Mail Preparer is not identified, a valid Mail Owner is not identified, Mail Preparer is incorrectly recorded as the Mail Owner, or the Mail Owner was previously identified as the Mail Preparer. Errors above the threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to the removal of the full-service discount claimed for each piece in error above the threshold.
Barcode uniqueness is met when a barcode is unique across all mailers and mailings for 45 days. The error threshold is 2%. Errors occur when the IMcb, IMtb or IMb is not unique across all mailings from all mailers over the previous 45 days of the Postage Statement Mailing Date that was provided in the eDoc. Errors above the threshold are subject to an assessment equal to the removal of the full-service discount claimed for each piece in error above the threshold.
The entry facility location must be identified in the eDoc by a Locale Key or ZIP Code. The error threshold is 2%. Errors above the threshold are subject to an assessment amount of the full-service discount claimed for each piece in error above the threshold.
Mailings that will be copalletized must be identified in the original eDoc submission. It is a requirement that the consolidator provide documentation within 14 days of the mailing date of the original eDoc to properly identify the linkage of the trays or sacks to the container. The error threshold is 5%. Errors above the threshold are subject to an assessment amount equal to the full-service discount claimed.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from passenger vehicles. We are approving the suspension of a local rule that regulated these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule will be effective on February 8, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0154. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4152,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On August 31, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve an amendment to Washoe County District Board of Health (WCDBOH) Regulations Governing Air Quality Management Section 040.095, “Oxygen Content of Motor Vehicle Fuel.” This amendment suspends all requirements of Section 040.095, which implements Washoe County's oxygenated fuel program.
We proposed to approve these provisions because we determined that they comply with relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received two comments, which were not specific to this action and thus are not addressed here.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is taking final action to approve the suspension of Section 040.095 as a revision to the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Section 040.095 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 12, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the November 14, 2017 direct final rule approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. Rhode Island's SIP revision updates the enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Rhode Island. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
The direct final rule was published on November 14, 2017 (82 FR 52655), and is withdrawn effective January 9, 2018.
Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone (617) 918-1660, facsimile (617) 918-0660, email
In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted by December 14, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received an adverse comment prior to the close of the comment period and, therefore, is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA also published a proposed rule on November 14, 2017 (82 FR 52682), stating that written comments must be received on or before December 14, 2017. However, EPA will institute an extended comment period for this action by publishing a notice of data availability.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State of Oklahoma's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. EPA has determined that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program approval. This action also codifies EPA's approval of Oklahoma's state program and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
This rule is effective March 12, 2018, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 8, 2018. If EPA receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-2239. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.
Audray Lincoln, (214) 665-2239,
States which have received final approval from the EPA under RCRA section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), must maintain an underground storage tank program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal underground storage tank program. When EPA makes revisions to the regulations that govern the UST program, states must revise their programs to comply with the updated regulations and submit these revisions to the EPA for approval. Changes to state UST programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 280. States can also initiate changes on their own to their underground storage tank program and these changes must then be approved by EPA.
On January 25, 2017, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Oklahoma submitted a complete program revision application seeking approval for its UST program revisions corresponding to the EPA final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566) which finalized revisions to the 1988 UST regulation and to the 1988 state program approval (SPA) regulation. As required by 40 CFR 281.20, the State submitted the following: A transmittal letter from the Governor requesting approval, a description of the program and operating procedures, a demonstration of the State's procedures to ensure adequate enforcement, a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and the implementing agency, a statement of certification from the Attorney General, and copies of all relevant state statutes and regulations. We have reviewed the
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations being approved by this rule are already effective in the State of Oklahoma, and they are not changed by this action. This action merely approves the existing state regulations as meeting the federal requirements and renders them federally enforceable.
The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. Oklahoma did not receive any comments during its comment period when the rules and regulations being considered today were proposed at the state level.
Along with this direct final, the EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
On October 14, 1992, EPA finalized a rule approving the UST program submitted by Oklahoma in lieu of the Federal program. On January 18, 1996, EPA codified the approved Oklahoma program that is subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under RCRA sections 9005 and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
In order to be approved, the program must provide for adequate enforcement of compliance as described in 40 CFR 40 CFR 281.11(b) and part 281, Subpart D. The OCC has broad statutory authority to regulate the installation, operation, maintenance, closure of USTs, and UST releases under Oklahoma Statutes (2016), Title 27A, Chapter 1, Article III, Section 1-3-101(E)(5)(b), Responsibilities and Jurisdiction of Environmental Agencies; Oklahoma Statutes (2016), Title 17, Chapter 3, Section 52(A)(k)(5) Corporation Commission Jurisdiction; Oklahoma Statutes (2016), Title 17, Chapter 14, Oklahoma Underground Storage Tank Regulation Act Sections 301 through 340; Oklahoma Statutes (2016), Title 17, Chapter 15, Oklahoma Petroleum Storage Tank Release Indemnity Program Sections 350 through 365; and Oklahoma Statutes (2016), Title 52, Chapter 5, Inspections Sections 321 through 347.
Specific authorities to regulate the installation, operation, maintenance, closure of USTs, and UST releases are found under Oklahoma Administrative Code, as amended effective August 25, 2016, Chapter 5, Rules of Practice; Oklahoma Administrative Code, as amended effective August 25, 2016, Chapter 15, Fuel Inspection; Oklahoma Administrative Code Chapter 25, Underground Storage Tanks; Oklahoma Administrative Code, as amended effective August 25, 2016, Chapter 27, Indemnity Fund; and Oklahoma Administrative Code, as amended effective August 25, 2016, Chapter 29, Corrective Action of Petroleum Storage Tank Releases. The aforementioned regulations satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 281.40 and 281.41.
Oklahoma's Petroleum Storage Tank Division (PSTD) provides notice and opportunity for public comment on all proposed settlements of civil enforcement actions, except where immediate emergency action is necessary to adequately protect human health, safety, and the environment. The PSTD investigates and provides responses to citizen complaints about violations. Additionally, the PSTD does not oppose citizen intervention when permissive intervention is allowed by statute, rule or regulation. Requirements for public participation can be found in the OCC's Chapter 25 UST rules (165:25-1-26.2) and 17 Oklahoma Statute, Section 313 allows OCC to furnish information to EPA when requested. Oklahoma has met the public participation requirements found in 40 CFR 281.42.
To qualify for final approval, a state's program must be “no less stringent” than the federal program in all elements of the revised EPA final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566). EPA added new operation and maintenance requirements and addressed UST systems deferred in the 1988 UST regulation. The changes also added secondary containment requirements for new and replaced tank and piping, operator training requirements, periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems, requirement to ensure UST system compatibility before storing certain biofuel blends. It removed past deferrals for emergency generator tanks, field constructed tanks and airport hydrant systems.
The OCC made updates to their regulations to ensure that they were no less stringent than the federal regulations which were revised on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566). 40 CFR 281.30 through 281.39 contains the “no less stringent than” criteria that a state must meet in order to have its UST program approved. In the State's application for approval of its UST program, the Oklahoma Attorney General certified that it meets the requirements listed in 40 CFR 281.30 through 281.39. EPA has relied on this certification in addition to the analysis submitted by the State in making our determination. For further information on EPA's analysis of the State's application, see the chart in the Technical Support Document (TSD) contained in the docket for this rulemaking. The corresponding state regulations are as follows:
40 CFR 281.30 lists the federal requirements for new UST system design, construction, installation, and notification with which a state must comply in order to be found to be no less stringent than federal requirements. Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter 25 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code require that USTs be designed, constructed, and installed in a manner that will prevent releases for their operating life due to manufacturing
40 CFR 281.31 requires that most existing UST systems meet the requirements of 281.30, are upgraded to prevent releases for their operating life due to corrosion, spills, or overfills, or are permanently closed. The rule lists two exceptions to these requirements. Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter 25 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contain the appropriate requirements that UST systems be upgraded to prevent releases during their operating life due to corrosion, spills, or overfills.
40 CFR 281.32 contains the general operating requirements that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than the federal requirements. Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contain the necessary general operating requirements required by 40 CFR 281.32.
40 CFR 281.33 contains the requirements for release detection that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than federal requirements. Parts 1 and 3 of Chapter 25 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contain the necessary requirements for release detection as required by 40 CFR 281.33.
40 CFR 281.34 contains the requirements for release reporting, investigation, and confirmation that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than federal requirements. Part 3 of Chapter 25 of Title 165 and Part 3 of Chapter 29 of Title 165 contain the necessary requirements as required by 40 CFR 281.34 for release reporting, investigation, and confirmation.
40 CFR 281.35 contains the requirements for release response and corrective action that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than federal requirements. Part 3 of Chapter 29 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contains the required provisions as listed in 40 CFR 281.35 for release response and corrective action.
40 CFR 281.36 contains the requirements for out of service UST systems and closures that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than federal requirements. Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter 25 or Title 165 in the Oklahoma Administrative Code contain the necessary requirements as listed in 40 CFR 281.36 for out of service UST systems and closures.
40 CFR 281.37 contains the requirements for financial responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than federal requirements. Part 2 of Chapter 25 of Title 165 and Parts 1 and 7 of Chapter 27 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contain the necessary requirements as listed in 40 CFR 281.37 for financial responsibility for UST systems.
40 CFR 281.38 contains the requirements for lender liability that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than federal requirements. Part 1 of Chapter 25 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contains the requirements for lender liability as listed in 40 CFR 281.38.
40 CFR 281.39 contains the requirements for operator training that must be met in order for the State's submission to be considered no less stringent than federal requirements. Part 1 of Chapter 25 of Title 165 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code contains the requirements for operator training as required by 40 CFR 281.39.
The following statutory and regulatory provisions are considered broader in coverage than the federal program:
Oklahoma requires that all regulated UST systems currently in use must have a valid permit issued by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) Petroleum Storage Tank Division (PSTD) before fuel can be dispensed. Permits are issued after the UST system is installed and the PSTD Registration Form, containing the original signatures of the Licensed UST Installer and the owner has been submitted and approved by PSTD, and the registration permit fee is paid. In order for owners to comply with the law and gain access to the Oklahoma Petroleum Storage Tank Release Indemnity Fund (“Indemnity Fund”) should a release occur during the installation of a regulated UST, a scheduling form must be submitted and a temporary authorization letter allowing fuel to be placed in the UST for testing purposes only must be issued before fuel can be delivered into the UST. If a release occurs during installation and a temporary authorization letter was not issued, the owner will not be eligible for access to the Indemnity Fund. (17 Okla. Stat. Section 308; OAC 165:25-1-42)
Oklahoma requires UST Installers, Removers, and Groundwater and Vapor Monitoring Technicians must provide proof of at least 2 years of work experience in
Environmental Consultants must have 7 years environmental experience with at least 2 of those years of experience at regulated storage tank facilities, provide evidence of attending 40 hours of OSHA HAZWOPER training, provide evidence of successful completion of a PSTD-approved Risk Based Corrective Action course (16 hours of risk assessment/risk analysis and 8 hours hands on computer training with appropriate software); and pass an examination in order to be licensed by PSTD.
Oklahoma requires UST Installers, UST Removers, Monitor Well Technicians, and UST Environmental Consultants must be licensed by PSTD (17 Okla. Stat. Section 318; OAC 165:25-1-101; OAC 165:25-1-102; OAC 165:25-1-103; OAC 165:29-3-90).
The State issues an authorization letter giving temporary approval to receive fuel. The statute found at 17 O.S. Section 308 B states that “no person shall deposit a regulated substance into a storage tank system unless the system is operating pursuant to a permit issued by the Commission.” The definition of a permit at 17 O.S. Section 303.22 states that it can be a registration, permit, license, or other authorization issued by the Commission to operate a storage tank system. In order to register a tank and obtain a “valid permit” the installation testing of the tank, lines, and leak detectors must be submitted with the OCC Registration Form (OAC 165:25-1-42(b)).
In order for tank owners to be eligible for access to the indemnity fund, the Compliance and Inspection Department must receive documentation of the required installation testing. The OCC requires submittal of a tank installation scheduling form and the issuance of a temporary fuel authorization letter before fuel can be placed in a tank. This is required at any facility installing a new tank. The temporary fuel authorization letter will be sent to the tank owner giving 90-day approval for fuel to be placed in the tank before an
Where an approved state program has a greater scope of coverage than required by federal law, the additional coverage is not part of the federally-approved program. 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii).
The following statutory and regulatory provisions are considered more stringent in coverage than the federal program:
Oklahoma requires all UST systems installed after July 1, 2008, must be double walled and use interstitial monitoring for release detection for tanks and/or piping. (OAC 165:25-3-6.21)
Oklahoma states a drop tube with overfill device is required on all UST systems installed after July 1, 2001. Tanks installed prior to July 1, 2001 must be upgraded to meet this standard before July 1, 2002, unless equipped with an operational ball float overfill device. A demonstration to prove an existing ball float device is operational and functioning properly is required annually. If found inoperable it must be replaced with a drop tube with flapper valve. (OAC 165:25-2-39)
Oklahoma requires a mechanism to prevent overfilling by sounding an alarm when the liquid level in the tank reaches 90 percent of capacity and automatically stops the delivery of liquid to the tank when the level in the tank reaches 95 percent of capacity. (OAC 165:25-2-39)
Oklahoma requires new product lines must be hydrostatically tested by a NWGLDE approved testing device capable of detecting a leak of 0.10 gallons per hour with a test pressure of 50 psi or 1
Oklahoma requires that owners and operators of all underground storage tank systems must notify PSTD at least 14 days prior to the removal or closure of underground storage tanks and/or lines by submitting a PSTD scheduling form and receiving confirmation of the scheduled removal from PSTD. An authorized agent of PSTD may be present to observe the removal and to inspect the closed tank system and surrounding environment prior to backfilling. A PSTD Licensed UST Remover must be on the job site during all removal activities, beginning with break-out of concrete. (OAC 165:25-2-131)
Oklahoma requires owners and operators who use Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) for release detection for their UST must also conduct inventory control to detect a release of at least 1.0 percent of flow-through plus 130 gallons every 30 days. Deliveries, withdrawals and balance remaining must be recorded each operating day on a PSTD Inventory Reconciliation Form or an electronic equivalent and must be reconciled. The regulated substance inputs must be reconciled with delivery receipts by measurement of the tank inventory volume before and after delivery. Statistical Inventory Reconciliation analysis reports must include a summary report of the quantitative results and must include copies of all inventory reconciliation forms. (OAC 165:25-3-6.28)
Oklahoma does not allow vapor monitoring, groundwater monitoring, or Statistical Inventory Reconciliation as a method of release detection for product lines. (OAC 165:25-3-6.29)
Oklahoma requires submittal of an Initial Site Characterization Report within 20 days of release confirmation. (OAC 165:29-3-75)
Oklahoma ensures owners and operators of regulated UST systems have $1,500,000 per occurrence for corrective action and third-party claims. (17 Okla. Stat. Section 356; OAC 165:27-7-2).
Oklahoma is not authorized to carry out its Program in Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) within the State. This authority remains with EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian Country.
Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's approved UST program into the CFR. Section 9004(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA to approve State UST programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA codifies its authorization of state programs in 40 CFR part 282 and incorporates by reference state regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA and any other applicable statutory provisions. The incorporation by reference of state authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the approved state program and state requirements that can be Federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the approved program in each state.
The EPA incorporated by reference Oklahoma's then approved UST program effective March 18, 1996 (61 FR 1220; January 18, 1996). In this document, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 282.86 to include the approval revision actions.
In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Oklahoma rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 282 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
The purpose of this
The EPA is incorporating by reference the Oklahoma approved UST program in 40 CFR 282.86. Section 282.86(d)(1)(i)(A) incorporates by
The EPA retains the authority under sections 9003(h), 9005 and 9006 of subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991b(h), 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake corrective action, inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in approved States. With respect to these actions, EPA will rely on federal sanctions, federal inspection authorities, and federal procedures rather than the state authorized analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Oklahoma procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 282.86(d)(1)(ii) of 40 CFR lists those approved Oklahoma authorities that would fall into this category.
The public also needs to be aware that some provisions of the State's UST program are not part of the federally approved State program. Such provisions are not part of the RCRA Subtitle I program because they are “broader in coverage” than Subtitle I of RCRA. 40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii) states that where an approved state program has provisions that are broader in coverage than the federal program, those provisions are not a part of the federally approved program. As a result, State provisions which are “broader in coverage” than the federal program are not incorporated by reference for purposes of enforcement in part 282. Section 282.86(d)(1)(iii) of the codification simply lists for reference and clarity the Oklahoma statutory and regulatory provisions which are “broader in coverage” than the federal program and which are not, therefore, part of the approved program being codified today. Provisions that are “broader in coverage” cannot be enforced by EPA; the State, however, will continue to implement and enforce such provisions under State law.
This action only applies to Oklahoma's UST Program requirements pursuant to RCRA Section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law. It complies with applicable EOs and statutory provisions as follows:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action approves and codifies State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 9004 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as this final approval of Oklahoma's revised underground storage tank program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this action approves and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves and codifies State requirements as part of the State RCRA underground storage tank program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Under RCRA section 9004(b), EPA grants a State's application for approval as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State approval application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule approves pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the
This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Oil pollution, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 282 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.
(a)
(b)
(c) To retain program approval, Oklahoma must revise its approved program to adopt new changes to the federal subtitle I program which make it more stringent, in accordance with section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, and 40 CFR part 281, subpart E. If Oklahoma obtains approval for the revised requirements pursuant to section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, the newly approved statutory and regulatory provisions will be added to this subpart and notice of any change will be published in the
(d) Oklahoma has final approval for the following elements of its program application originally submitted to EPA and approved effective October 14, 1992, and the program revision application approved by EPA effective on March 12, 2018:
(1)
(A) The binder entitled “Oklahoma Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Underground Storage Tank Program, October 2017. Those provisions are listed in Appendix A to Part 282.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii)
(A) The statutory provisions include:
(
(
(
(B) The regulatory provisions include:
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) The regulatory provisions include:
1, Chapter 25 “Underground Storage Tanks”.
Subchapter 1, General Provisions: Part 1, “Purpose”, Section 165:25-1-1; Part 3, “Definitions”, Section 165:25-1-11; Part 5, “Scope of Rules”, Sections 165:25-1-21, 165:25-1-23.1, and 165:25-1-24; Part 9, “Notification and Reporting Requirements”, Sections 165:25-1-41, 165:25-1-42, 165:25-1-48, 165:25-1-51; Part 11, “Recordkeeping”, 165:25-1-53 through 165:25-1-58, and 165:25-1-60; Part 19, “Operator Training”, Sections 165:25-1-120, 165:25-1-122 and 165:25-1-124.
Subchapter 2, “General Requirements for Underground Storage Tank Systems”, Part 1, “Codes and Standards”, Sections 165:25-2-1, 165:25-2-2 and 165:25-2-4, Part 3, “Design and Installation”, Sections 165:25-2-31 through 165:25-2-33, 165:25-2-35 through 165:25-2-41, Part 5, “Protection Against Corrosion”, Sections 165:25-2-51, 165:25-2-52, 165:25-2-53 and 165:25-2-53.1, Part 6, “Piping”, Sections 165:25-2-55.1 and 165:25-2-55.2, Part 7, “Dispensers”, Sections 165:25-2-71, 165:25-2-72, 165:25-2-73, 165:25-2-75 and 165:25-2-76; Part 9, “Electrical”, Section 165:25-2-91; Part 11, ” Repairs to Underground Storage Tank Systems”, Section 165:25-2-111; Part 13 “Removal and Closure of Underground Storage Tank Systems”, Sections 165:25-2-131, and 165:25-2-133 through 165:25-2-138.
Subchapter 3, “Release Prevention and Detection Requirements”: Part 1, Release Prohibition Requirements”, Section 165:25-3-1; Part 2, “Release Detection Requirements and Methods”, Sections 165:25-3-6.20 through 165:25-3-6.29; Part 3, “Release Investigation Requirements”, Sections 165:25-3-7.1 and 165:25-3-8; Part 15, “Corrective Action Requirements”, Section 165:25-3-70.
Subchapter 5, “Upgrades”, Sections 165:25-5-1 through 165:25-5-4.
Subchapter 6, “Special Requirements for Underground Storage Tank Systems Utilized by Airports Open to the Public”, Part 1, “General Application and Compliance Provisions”, Section 165:25-6-1; Part 3, “Codes and Standards”, Section 165:25-6-7; Part 5, “Dispense Requirements”, Sections 165:25-6-13, 165:25-6-14, 165:25-6-15 and 165:25-6-17; Part 7, “Tank Filling Procedures”, Section 165:25-6-21; Part 9, “Dispensing Procedures”, Sections 165:25-6-27 and 165:25-6-28; Part 11,
Subchapter 8, “Special Requirements for Underground Storage Tanks Utilized by Marinas”: Part 1, “General Application and Compliance Provisions”, Sections 165:25-8-1 and 165:25-8-2; Part 3, “Over-water Piping Requirements”, Sections 165:25-8-3 and 165:25-8-4; Part 5, “Dispenser Requirements”, Sections 165:25-8-14 through 165:25-8-17; Part 9, “Dispensing Procedures”, Section 165:25-8-29; Part 11, “Miscellaneous Safety Requirements, Sections 165:25-8-35 and 165:25-8-36.
Subchapter 14, “Special Requirements for Underground Storage Tank Systems Utilized by Bulk Plant Facilities”: Part 1, “General Application and Compliance Provisions”, Section 165:25-14-1; Part 3, “Dispenser Requirements”, Section 165:25-14-7; Part 5, “Loading Facilities”, Sections 165:25-14-13 and 165:25-14-14; Part 7, “Tank Filling Procedures”, Section 165:25-14-20; Part 9, “Dispensing Procedures”, Sections 165:25-14-26 and 165:25-14-27.
2. Chapter 27 “Indemnity Fund. Subchapter 1, “General Provisions”, Section 165:27-1-2; Subchapter 5, “Qualifications for Reimbursement”, Section 165:27-5-2; Subchapter 7, “Reimbursement”, Sections 165:27-7-2 and 165:27-7-6.
3. Chapter 29 “Corrective Action of Petroleum Storage Tank Releases”:
Subchapter 1, “General Provisions”: Part 1, “Purpose and Statutory Authority”, Sections 165:29-1-1 and 165:29-1-2; Part 3, “Definitions”, Section 165:29-1-11; Part 5, “Scope of Rules”, Section 165:29-1-21; Part 7, “National Industry Codes”, Sections 165:29-1-31 and 165:29-1-32;.
Subchapter 3, “Release Prevention, Detection and Correction”: Part 1, “Release Prohibition, Reporting and Investigation”, Sections 165:29-3-1, 165:29-3-2 and 165:29-3-3; Part 3, “Removal and Closure of Petroleum Storage Tank Systems”, Section 165:29-3-65; Part 5, “Corrective Action Requirements”, Sections 165:29-3-71 through 165:29-3-76, Sections 165:29-3-78, 165:29-3-79, 165:29-3-80, 165:29-3-82 and 165:29-3-83.
(b) Copies of the Oklahoma regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from the State's Office of Administrative Rules, Secretary of State, P.O. Box 53390, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3390; Phone number: 405-521-4911; website:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) is announcing that three final rules that appeared in the
47 CFR 96.29 published at 80 FR 36164, June 23, 2015, and 47 CFR 96.17(b) and 47 CFR 96.3 published at 81 FR 49024, July 26, 2016, are effective on January 9, 2018.
Becky Schwartz, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-7178. For additional information concerning the information collection requirements contained in the
The
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is issuing a final rule to implement the annual inflationary adjustment to its civil monetary penalties, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
This final rule is effective on January 9, 2018.
Amy Ziehm: (202) 245-0391. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-8339.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), enacted as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, requires agencies to adjust their civil penalties for inflation annually, beginning on January 15, 2017, and no later than January 15 of every year thereafter. In accordance with the 2015 Act, annual inflation adjustments are to be based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for October of the previous year and the October CPI-U of the year before that. Penalty level adjustments should be rounded to the nearest dollar.
The statutory definition of civil monetary penalty covers various civil penalty provisions under the Rail (Part A); Motor Carriers, Water Carriers, Brokers, and Freight Forwarders (Part B); and Pipeline Carriers (Part C)
As set forth in this final rule, the Board is amending 49 CFR pt. 1022 to make an annual inflation adjustment to the civil monetary penalties in conformance with the requirements of the 2015 Act. The adjusted penalties set forth in the rule will apply only to violations that occur after the effective date of this regulation.
In accordance with the 2015 Act, the annual adjustment adopted here is calculated by multiplying each current penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment factor of 1.02041, which reflects the percentage change between the October 2017 CPI-U (738.893) and the October 2016 CPI-U (724.113). The table at the end of this decision shows the statutory citation for each civil penalty, a description of the provision, the current baseline statutory civil penalty level, and the adjusted statutory civil penalty level for 2018.
The final rule set forth at the end of this decision is being issued without notice and comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), which does not require that process “when the agency for good cause finds” that public notice and comment are “unnecessary.” Here, Congress has mandated that the agency make an annual inflation adjustment to its civil monetary penalties. The Board has no discretion to set alternative levels of adjusted civil monetary penalties, because the amount of the inflation adjustment must be calculated in accordance with the statutory formula. Given the absence of discretion, the Board has determined that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without soliciting public comment and to make this regulation effective immediately upon publication.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
1. The Board amends its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the final rule will be published in the
2. This decision is effective on its date of service.
Administrative practice and procedures, Brokers, Civil penalties, Freight forwarders, Motor carriers, Pipeline carriers, Rail carriers, Water carriers.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1022 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 551-557; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 49 U.S.C. 11901, 14901, 14903, 14904, 14905, 14906, 14907, 14908, 14910, 14915, 16101, 16103.
(b) The cost-of-living adjustment required by the statute results in the following adjustments to the civil monetary penalties within the jurisdiction of the Board:
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is proposing to amend
Submit comments on or before February 8, 2018.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to
Heather Dyer at (207) 482-7217, or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
Pursuant to Postal Service regulations, compliance with the Move Update standard is a basic eligibility requirement for mailers of USPS Marketing Mail and First-Class Mail letters and flats using commercial automation and presort rates. The Move Update standard requires mailers to update addresses for which a change of address (COA) order exists within a specified period of time. By requiring mailers to comply with the Move Update standard, the Postal Service aims to improve address quality and ensure mailpieces reach their intended recipients, which benefits both the Postal Service and its customers. The Move Update standard also is intended to reduce mail processing and delivery costs for the Postal Service.
Today, mailers can meet the Move Update standard using the USPS-approved methods of Address Change Service (ACS
The overarching goal of the Move Update standard is to reduce the incidence of undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) mail, which is costly for the Postal Service because UAA pieces must be forwarded, returned, or discarded, and costly for mailers because these pieces fail to reach their intended recipients. The Postal Service incurs the most costs returning pieces, while discarding UAA pieces imposes the lowest cost. The 2016 per-piece cost for each disposition type (FCM only) is shown below:
First-Class Mail UAA pieces represent most of the Postal Service's costly return-to-sender volume; a First-Class Mail mailpiece must be returned-to-sender if it is associated with a COA record that is more than 12 months old, or if it is otherwise identified as UAA as specified in DMM 507.1.5.1. In 2017, the Postal Service discarded only 3 percent of First-Class Mail UAA pieces; in comparison, 98.5 percent of USPS Marketing Mail UAA pieces were discarded. The reason for this discrepancy is that UAA USPS Marketing Mail pieces are destroyed unless the mailers pays for forwarding or return after requesting those services using an ancillary service endorsement.
While the focus of the Postal Service's Move Update program has been to reduce the amount of UAA mail, the Postal Service recognizes that not all UAA mail can be eliminated. The Postal Service wants to reduce the cost to the Postal Service of the remaining UAA mail. The Postal Service therefore is proposing to introduce a new alternative method to meet the Move Update standard, Green & Secure, which would both reduce the volume of return-to-sender mail and reduce mailers' risk of assessment through the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process (AQCMAP), a new method of verifying that mailers have adopted a USPS-approved Move Update method which starts February 1, 2018. An exemption from AQCMAP fees would provide a needed incentive for more mailers to mark their mail for destruction rather than return to the mailer.
Green & Secure would be a USPS-approved Move Update alternative option for First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail letter and flat-size pieces that meet the requirements for Basic and Full Service mailings. Under Green & Secure, mailers would need to (1) use either an ACS Change Service Requested Service Type ID (STID) or a Secure Destruction STID, the latter of which is limited to First-Class Mail only, and (2) would need to seek pre-approval from the Postal Service in certain circumstances.
The ACS Change Service Requested STID would be available for use on First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail pieces. Full-Service mailers would not need pre-approval to use Green & Secure if using an ACS Change Service Requested STID on eligible mailpieces.
The Secure Destruction STID would continue to be available for use on First-Class Mail pieces only. First-Class Mail mailers already participating in Secure Destruction service and utilizing an approved Secure Destruction STID would continue to have their UAA mailpieces destroyed and recycled in a secure manner. Secure Destruction participation requires mailers to register their Mailer ID with the Postal Service's ACS Department prior to using the Secure Destruction STID in their IMbs. This pre-approval requirement applies to Full-Service mailers. Under Secure Destruction, mailpieces are shredded by Postal Service employees at Postal Service facilities, which renders the pieces unreadable prior to recycling. Secure Destruction shreds mailpieces to a size that is more stringent than the standards set forth by the National Association for Information Destruction and common industry practice in the United States for documents with sensitive and/or confidential information.
For each Green & Secure STID type, the Postal Service would provide mailers with an electronic ACS notification indicating that the piece is UAA. Green & Secure would continue the process of providing First-Class Mail mailers that use the Secure Destruction STID with an additional electronic notification to indicate when and where the mailpiece was processed and securely shredded.
Green & Secure would continue to provide mailers using either STID with two disposition options for their mailpieces:
•
•
While there is no additional charge for forwarding of First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail that is forwarded under Option 2 will be charged the appropriate per piece forwarding fee for the mail shape.
In August 2017, the Postal Service gained regulatory approval from the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process in PRC Docket No. R2017-7 (available on-line at
The Mailer Scorecard is currently available to mailers, providing data that allow mailers to gauge address quality on their mailpieces. Under Green & Secure, the Mailer Scorecard would continue to be a valuable tool in assisting mailers to improve their address quality. The total number of mailpieces using the Green & Secure alternative method would be reported under the eDoc Submitter CRID through a dedicated field on the Mailer Scorecard. In addition, if a mailpiece is associated with a COA that is between 95 and 18 months old, and the address has not been updated, a COA warning for the associated IMb would be logged and allocated under the CRID of the eDoc submitter in the Mailer Scorecard.
Mailers would be able to use the Green & Secure Alternative Move Update Method when they:
Use a unique Basic or Full Service IMb on mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces for First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail;
Use eDoc to submit mailing information and include piece level detail (by piece or piece range);
Contact the Postal Service ACS Department, for non-Full-Service mailers who wish to use a Basic ACS Change Service Requested STID, and all mailers seeking to use the Secure Destruction STID.
The Postal Service is proposing the specifications for meeting the Move Update requirements through an alternative method. Once the Postal Service implements the proposed process, mailers may meet the Move Update standard using Green & Secure as follows:
Mailers would utilize an ACS Change Service Requested STID on First-Class Mail or USPS Marketing Mail, or a Secure Destruction STID on First-Class Mail.
Mailpieces bearing these STID types would be verified separately from the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process and would not be subject to Move Update assessment charges.
Mailpieces bearing these STIDs that are UAA would be discarded or securely destroyed by the Postal Service; electronic notification and information via the Mailer Scorecard would be provided.
Once qualifying mailings are processed on mail processing equipment, the data from mailpieces would be reconciled with eDoc. These results would be available on the Business Customer Gateway, and displayed on the Electronic Verification tab of the Mailer Scorecard, which would be easily accessible at
To resolve Mailer Scorecard irregularities, mailers would continue to be able to contact the
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
[Revise the heading and text of 5.2 to read as follows:]
Mailer Move Update Process Certification and USPS-approved alternative methods are authorized for meeting the Move Update standard. The National Customer Support Center administers and approves both Mailer Move Update Process Certification and alternative methods.
Mailer Move Update Process Certification methods are as follows:
a. Address Change Service (ACS).
b. National Change of Address Linkage System (NCOALink). This includes both pre-mail NCOALink processing systems and the physical mailpiece processing equipment system: National Change of Address Linkage System Mail Processing Equipment (NCOALink MPE). See the NCOALink page (NCOALink MPE Solutions) on
c. Applicable ancillary service endorsements under 507.1.5.1 or 507.1.5.3, except “Forwarding Service Requested.”
Alternate Move Update methods are as follows:
a.
b.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information and reopening of the comment period.
On August 24, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to approve the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
The comment period for the proposed rule published on August 24, 2017 (82 FR 40086) (FRL-9966-60-Region 7) is reopened. Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-RO7-OAR-2017-0416 must be received on or before February 8, 2018.
Submit your comments pertaining to this supplemental action, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0416 to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
On August 24, 2017, at 82 FR 40086, EPA proposed to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Iowa for attaining the 1-hour SO
As discussed in EPA's original August 24, 2017, proposal (82 FR 40086), on April 23, 2014, the EPA issued recommended guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in SO
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions as the Administrator may determine necessary to assure that the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA are met. Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan expressly identify and quantify the emissions, if any, of any such pollutant or pollutants which will be allowed, in accordance with section 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA, from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources in each such area. The plan shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the emissions quantified for this purpose will be consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO
The base year inventory establishes a baseline that is used to evaluate emissions reductions achieved by the control strategy and to assess reasonable further progress requirements. The state's nonattainment SIP noted that, at the time, the most recent and available triennial inventory year was 2011, and the stated found that it served as a suitable base year. Table 1 provides the baseline 2011 SO
The state's nonattainment SIP provided a 2018 projected emissions inventory only for the stationary sources that would be controlled under the SIP (Grain Processing Corporation, Muscatine Power and Water and Monsanto); the state's 2018 projected emissions are provided in table 2. As noted in EPA's proposal, the inventory was developed assuming each SO
In this supplemental document, EPA is providing an update to the state's 2018 projected emissions inventory for public inspection. The updated 2018 projected emissions inventory includes: Emissions from Louisa Generating Station (LGS) located in nearby Louisa County (presented as a potential to emit (PTE) level as provided by the state); emissions from the less than 1 ton per year (tpy) point sources that were included in the baseline emission inventory; and emissions from the area source, fire, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile source categories. Tables 3 through 6 provide information on how EPA completed the 2018 projections from the area source, fire, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile source categories as well as the less than 1 tpy point sources. A summary of the 2018 projected emissions inventory is provided in table 7.
As with the state's 2011 baseline emissions inventory, the fire, nonroad mobile, onroad mobile and area source emissions are county-wide and not specific to the partial Muscatine County nonattainment area. EPA increased the emissions based on population growth factors. In order to complete these projections, EPA first gathered population projections for Muscatine county, as seen in table 3.
Next, EPA developed growth factors by computing population ratios by comparing the projected 2020 population to the 2010 population and then comparing the 2020 population to the 2015 population, as provided in table 4.
Then, EPA downloaded the 2011 and 2014 emissions from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and multiplied the NEI values by the growth factors to calculate a 2018 maximum projection value, as provided in table 5. That is, EPA multiplied the 2011 NEI base year emissions by the 2018 growth factor of 1.03 and the 2014 NEI base year emissions by the 2018 growth factor of 1.02, then selected the highest estimate for each source category as the 2018 maximum projected emissions (data have been rounded to the nearest whole number).
In order to project the 2018 emissions for the less than 1 tpy sources provided in the 2011 baseline emission inventory (HNI Corporation—North and Central Campuses, H.J. Heinz, L.P., and Union Tank Car Co.—Muscatine), EPA selected the highest emissions from the 2008 to 2015 time period as the sources' projected 2018 emissions, table 6. The total of the county's nonroad mobile, onroad moble, fire and area source category projected 2018 emissions would be about .13 percent of the partial county nonattainment area's total emissions).
Additionally, there is a large source outside of the nonattainment area, LGS, that was included in the state's 2011 baseline emission inventory. On October 12, 2017, the state submitted, via email, the 2018 potential to emit (PTE) from LGS equaling approximately 15,188 tpy. The email has been added to the docket for public inspection. Table 7 provides a summary of the projected 2018 emissions for the nonattainment area, and that summary includes LGS at its PTE. However, after reviewing LGS's operating history from 2012 to 2016 we expect that the facility will emit considerably less SO
The EPA is providing the updated 2018 projected emissions inventory information for public inspection and in support of the Agency's previous proposal to determine that the state has met the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 172(c)(4).
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action is not subject to review under Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from organic liquid storage and transfer operations. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by February 8, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0680 at
Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3004,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 2.21 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved an earlier version of Rule 2.21 into the SIP on October 31,
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SIP-approved Rule 2.21 limits VOC emissions from organic liquid storage tanks and during transfers at bulk terminals, bulk gasoline plants, and gasoline dispensing facilities. Revisions to the SIP-approved version of Rule 2.21 adopted on March 12, 2014, and September 14, 2016, exempt gasoline dispensing facilities from Rule 2.21, remove associated vapor recovery requirements for Stage I gasoline transfers at gasoline dispensing facilities, restrict allowable primary seals for storage tanks to mechanical shoe seals, and make other clarifying changes regarding floating roof seals and deck fitting requirements. The YSAQMD exempted gasoline dispensing facilities and removed associated vapor recovery requirements from Rule 2.21 to eliminate redundancies between Rule 2.21 and SIP-approved YSAQMD Rule 2.22, which contains equivalent requirements for Phase I gasoline transfers at gasoline dispensing facilities. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Additionally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, the YSAQMD must implement RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG and each major source of VOCs. Rule 2.21 applies to the following four CTG source categories: (1) External floating roof storage tanks, (2) fixed-roof storage tanks, (3) bulk gasoline terminals, and (4) bulk gasoline plants.
Guidance documents that we use to evaluate submitted rules for compliance with the requirements for enforceability, SIP revisions and rule stringency for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-77-036, December 1977.
5. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-78-047, December 1978.
6. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants,” EPA-450/2-77-035, December 1977.
7. “Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,” EPA-450/2-77-026, October 1977.
8. “Alternative Control Techniques Document: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks,” EPA-453/R-94-001, January 1994.
This rule is consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule because it satisfies all applicable requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until February 8, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the YSAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a 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
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the comment period for a proposed Clean Air Act rule published August 15, 2017. An appendix to one of the documents EPA proposed to approve was not available on
Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092 at
Rachel Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7017,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On August 15, 2017, EPA proposed to approve certain changes to Michigan's minor new source review program which is contained in Part 2 of the Michigan Administrative Code. EPA had previously reopened the comment period due to an incomplete docket from November 2, 2017 to December 4, 2017. The file containing the state's September 2, 2003 submittal made available on
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State of Oklahoma's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. This action is based on EPA's determination that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program approval. This action also proposes to codify EPA's approval of Oklahoma's state program and to incorporate by reference those provisions of the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
Send written comments by February 8, 2018.
Submit any comments, identified by EPA-R06-UST-2017-0504, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-2239. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.
Ms. Audray Lincoln, Region 6, Project Officer, LUST Prevention/Corrective Action Section (6MM-XU), Multimedia Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-2239, email address
For additional information, see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Request for information.
This request for information seeks public comment regarding several items related to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) personnel requirements and histocompatibility requirements, which, with minor exception, have not been updated since 1992. We are also seeking public comment regarding the flexibility to impose alternative sanctions for laboratories issued a Certificate of Waiver (CoW) determined to have participated in proficiency testing (PT) referral. In addition, we are seeking public comment related to appropriate sanctions in situations where we determine that a laboratory has referred its PT samples to another laboratory and has reported the other laboratory's result as their own.
This request for information also seeks public comment regarding the updating of fees for determination of program compliance and additional fees for laboratories established under the CLIA regulations. We are also seeking public comment regarding the collection of other fees we are authorized to collect such as fees for revised certificates, post survey follow-up visits, complaint investigations, and activities related to imposition of sanctions.
We intend to consider public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) received in response to this request for information when we draft proposals, in consultation, as appropriate, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to update the existing CLIA regulations through future rulemaking. We are also soliciting public comment on other areas of CLIA which should be reviewed and potentially updated.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 12, 2018.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3326-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For general questions, please contact Caecilia Blondiaux, 410-786-2190.
For personnel requirements, please contact Sarah Bennett, 410-786-3354.
For proficiency testing referral, please contact Sarah Bennett, 410-786-3354.
For histocompatibility, please contact Penelope Meyers, 410-786-3366.
For CLIA fees, please contact Cindy Flacks, 410-786-6520.
Generally, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) regulations related to personnel requirements have not been updated since 1992, with the exception of minor changes to doctoral high complexity laboratory director qualifications in 2003 (see 68 FR 3713). We are soliciting public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) and intend to draft proposals, to update the existing CLIA personnel regulations through future rulemaking. The topics listed in this request for information are areas that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CMS, stakeholders and State Agency surveyors identified as concepts that should be relevant to our efforts to update the CLIA personnel requirements to better reflect current knowledge, changes in the academic context and advancements in laboratory testing. Therefore, prior to starting the rulemaking process, we are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends), including stakeholder and surveyor feedback, specific to the topics discussed in this request for information. We intend to consider any such comments when we draft proposals to update the existing CLIA personnel regulations to better protect public health and safety and reflect current knowledge, changes in the academic context, and advancements in laboratory testing.
As noted in Survey & Certification Letter 16-18-CLIA
We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) related to whether, for purposes of meeting the educational requirements for moderate complexity technical consultants and testing personnel and high complexity testing personnel, §§ 493.1411, 493.1423, and 493.1489 should be amended: (1) To expressly reflect that a nursing degree is equivalent to a biological science degree; or (2) to add nursing degrees as a separate qualifying degree (as opposed to the equivalent of a biological science degree) to the current list of qualifying degrees.
Due to variation in usage and the absence of universally accepted definitions, a “physical science degree” is difficult to define for regulatory purposes. We note, however, that physical science is a broad discipline often described as the study of non-living systems, such as astronomy, physics, and earth sciences. Generally, these types of degrees are not related to clinical laboratory testing. We note that in some instances, individuals with these types of degrees have been able to qualify as high complexity testing personnel under § 493.1489.
We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) on what is considered a physical science degree and whether any physical science degree(s) should be considered as educational background(s) appropriate for qualifying to meet the CLIA educational requirements at §§ 493.1405, 493.1411, 493.1423, 493.1443, 493.1449, 493.1461, and 493.1489.
We recognize that the personnel qualifications for general supervisors may be less stringent than those of technical consultants. However, the current CLIA regulations allow general supervisors with associate's degrees (§ 493.1461) to perform competency assessment on high complexity testing personnel (see §§ 493.1461(c)(2), 493.1489(b)(2)(i)), but because the personnel requirements for moderate complexity testing do not include the general supervisor category, the same general supervisors cannot perform competency assessment on moderate complexity testing personnel unless they can meet the regulatory qualifications of a technical consultant (§ 493.1411). Technical consultants, at a minimum, are required to have a bachelor's degree in chemical, physical, or biological science or medical technology. We recognize that high complexity testing is inherently more involved than moderate complexity testing. We have received feedback from laboratories and other stakeholders that the difference in degree requirements to qualify to assess competency presents staffing challenges in laboratories. We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) regarding whether general
Currently, when we refer to laboratory training, experience and/or skills,
We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) on what should be considered appropriate laboratory training, experience and skills when determining the qualifications necessary for all
Several current CLIA personnel requirements allow a position to be filled by an individual with a degree in a “chemical, physical, biological or clinical laboratory science, or medical technology.”
We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) related to such non-traditional degrees, specifically whether these types of degrees should be considered to meet the requirements for a chemical, physical, biological or clinical laboratory science, and/or medical technology degrees.
The Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act (“TEST Act”) (Pub. L. 112-202, enacted on December 4, 2012) amended section 353 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to provide the Secretary with discretion as to which sanctions may be applied to cases of intentional PT referral. Such discretion may in some circumstances replace the automatic revocation of the laboratory's CLIA certificate and subsequent imposition of the 2-year ban on the laboratory's owner or operator, which would prevent them from owning or operating a CLIA-certified laboratory for 2 years.
The final rule entitled, “Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Federally Qualified Health Centers; Changes to Contracting Policies for Rural Health Clinics; and Changes to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Enforcement Actions for Proficiency Testing Referral”, published in the May 2, 2014
“Category 1”, found at § 493.1840(b)(1), is for the most egregious violations, encompassing cases of repeat PT referral, regardless of circumstances revolving around the violation, and cases where a laboratory reports another laboratory's PT results as its own to the PT program. This category includes the revocation of the laboratory's CLIA certificate for at least 1 year, bans the owner and operator from owning or operating a CLIA-certified laboratory for at least 1 year, and may include the imposition of a civil money penalty (CMP). The application of the owner exemption from the ban is determined on a case-by-case basis (see § 493.1840(b)(1)(ii)).
We are seeking public comment related to applying discretion in situations where we determine that a laboratory has referred its PT samples to another laboratory and has reported the other laboratory's PT results as its own, and under what circumstances the discretion should be applied.
Section 353(d)(2)(C) of the PHSA states that laboratories issued a CoW are only exempt from subsections (f) and (g) of the statute. All other subsections apply, including the prohibition against PT referral in subsection (i), which refers to “any laboratory” that the Secretary determines has intentionally referred its PT samples. Therefore, CoW laboratories that participate in PT are not exempt from the ban against PT referral. Per § 493.1775(b), CoW laboratories may be inspected to determine if the laboratory is operated and testing is performed in a manner that does not constitute an imminent and serious risk to public health, evaluate a complaint, determine whether the laboratory is performing tests beyond the scope of its certificate, or to collect information regarding the appropriateness of tests specified as waived tests. In addition, § 493.1775(c) requires the laboratory to comply with the basic inspection requirements of § 493.1773. However, the CLIA regulations at § 493.1804(c)(1) state that we do not impose alternative sanctions on CoW laboratories because those laboratories are not inspected for compliance with condition-level requirements. Therefore, our only recourse in cases of PT referral found at CoW laboratories are principal sanctions (that is, revocation, suspension, or limitation).
We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) to determine if alternative sanctions instead of principal sanctions should be an option in these cases in order to create parity for all certificate types for laboratories determined to have participated in PT referral.
Generally, the CLIA regulations related to histocompatibility have not been updated since 1992, with the exception of certain changes in 2003 (see 68 FR 3640). We are soliciting
As a result of changes in histocompatibility testing technology and practices, as well as advances in organ transplantation since 1992, we believe that some of the requirements found at § 493.1278 have become outdated and may preclude the use of current transplantation practices. For example, in some cases, performing a “virtual crossmatch” has replaced the use of a “physical crossmatch” to determine compatibility between the donor and recipient.
The CLIA regulations require a crossmatch to be performed as part of the laboratory testing process (see 42 CFR 493.1278(e)). Although not specified in the regulation, the crossmatching procedures in use in 1992 were physical crossmatches (also referred to as serologic crossmatches), that is, a mixing of specimens from donor and recipient to check for compatibility. We understand that these regulations are viewed by the transplantation community as a barrier to modernized decision-making approaches on organ acceptability based on risk assessment.
Virtual crossmatching generally refers to an assessment of immunologic compatibility based on the patient's alloantibody profile compared to the donor's histocompatibility antigens. In virtual crossmatching, laboratory test results already performed on donors and recipients are compared in order to predict compatibility and determine whether an organ is acceptable for a patient.
The CLIAC Virtual Crossmatch Workgroup was convened to gather information on the acceptability and application of virtual crossmatching in lieu of serologic crossmatching for transplantation.
The workgroup reported on advances in the field of transplantation since the CLIA regulations were published in 1992. These advances have made the physical crossmatching less significant or even obsolete in some cases. Specifically:
• Histocompatibility testing has evolved from cell based assays to molecular typing and solid phase platforms for antibody detection, leading to improved accuracy, sensitivity, specificity.
• Significant changes have occurred in the clinical practice of transplantation (for example, immunosuppression, desensitization practices), and improvements in anti-rejection therapies have led to improved outcomes and mitigation of risk due to antibodies against human leukocyte antigens (HLA).
These advances have made virtual crossmatching a viable alternative to physical crossmatching. The Virtual Crossmatch Workgroup presented a report called the Acceptability and Application of Virtual Crossmatching in lieu of Serologic Crossmatching for Transplantation,
• Regulatory changes or guidance(s) that would allow virtual crossmatching to replace physical crossmatching as a pre-requisite for organ transplant.
• Appropriate criteria and decision-making algorithms, based on the Virtual Crossmatch Workgroup input provided to CLIAC, under which virtual crossmatching would be an appropriate substitute for physical crossmatching. The determination of appropriate criteria and decision-making algorithms should involve a process that includes an open comment period.
We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) related to these two CLIAC recommendations; that is, whether virtual crossmatching should be an acceptable alternative to physical crossmatching, and under what criteria and decision-making algorithms virtual crossmatching would be an appropriate substitute for physical crossmatching.
Since the CLIA specialty requirements for histocompatibility testing were initially finalized in 1992, there have been many advancements in laboratory testing. We believe that some of the requirements found at § 493.1278 other than those related to crossmatching may also be outdated or are redundant with other requirements found in subpart K of the regulations. We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) related to any histocompatibility regulations that have become outdated, and suggestions for updating the histocompatibility regulations to align with current laboratory practice.
With the exception of the certificate fees notice which was published in the August 29, 1997
Section 353(m) of the PHSA requires the Secretary to impose two separate types of fees: “certificate fees” and “additional fees.” Certificate fees are imposed for the issuance and renewal of certificates (except that only a nominal fee may be required for the issuance and renewal of CoWs) and must be sufficient to cover the general costs of administering the CLIA program, including and evaluating and monitoring approved PT programs and accrediting bodies and implementing and monitoring compliance with program requirements. Additional fees are imposed for inspections of non-accredited laboratories and for the cost of performing PT on laboratories that do not participate in approved PT programs. The additional fees must be sufficient to cover, among other things, the cost of carrying out such inspections and PT. Certificate and additional fees must vary by group or classification of laboratory, based on such considerations as the Secretary determines are relevant, which may include the dollar volume and scope of the testing being performed by the laboratories. The regulations provide for a methodology for determining
The regulations also allow for collection of fees for revised certificates (§ 493.639). We are exploring an appropriate methodology for determining a fair and reasonable fee to support these requests. At present, laboratories may request a revised certificate due to a change in name, location, director, services offered (for example, specialty or subspecialty), or certificate type (for example, CoC to Certificate of Provider-performed Microscopy (PPM) Procedures). There is a cost associated with such a request, including staff time to verify and make the edits in the data system, the contractor's time to print the revised certificate, and the supplies required to print the revised certificate. The fee for revised certificate would likely be a standard nominal fee for such requests.
Laboratories holding a CoC are subject to fees for determination of program compliance according to the regulations at § 493.643(b). Laboratories that hold a CoA are subject to additional fees as outlined in § 493.645(b). As noted in this request for information, the statute requires certificate and additional fees to vary by group or classification of laboratory, based on such considerations as the Secretary determines are relevant, which may include the dollar volume and scope of the testing being performed by the laboratories. Section 493.643(c) lists the classifications, or schedules, of laboratories based on the laboratory's scope and volume of testing. These schedules are used to determine the fee amount a laboratory is assessed and will not be revised. The compliance determination fees have not been increased since the final rule was published in 1992. The cost of conducting compliance determination activities (for example, surveys, PT reviews, and evaluating personnel) has increased over the life of the CLIA program.
The regulations allow for us to collect fees for follow-up visits post survey, complaint investigations, and activities associated with imposing sanctions. Such fees for laboratories holding a CoC are outlined in §§ 493.643(b) and 493.643(d), while laboratories holding a CoA, CoW and a PPM Certificate are subject to §§ 493.645(b)(2) and 493.645(c), as applicable. We are exploring methodology for assessing a fair fee for these compliance determination activities.
The methodology for determining fee amounts is found in § 493.649. The amount of the fee in each schedule for compliance determination inspections is based on the average hourly rate for each entity, which includes costs to perform required activities and necessary administration costs. The hourly rate is multiplied by the average number of hours required to perform these activities. We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) on an alternate method to calculate the average hourly rate for each entity as outlined in § 493.649(b). We are also seeking information on whether the method should be standardized and updated annually or as needed.
We are therefore soliciting public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) on the best method for instituting this regulatory authority to collect CLIA fees.
This is a request for information only. Respondents are encouraged to provide complete but concise responses to the questions listed in the sections outlined below. Please note that a response to every question is not required. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a Request for Proposal, applications, proposal abstracts, or quotations. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant award. Further, we are not seeking proposals through this RFI and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future procurement, if conducted. It is the responsibility of the potential responders to monitor this RFI announcement for additional information pertaining to this request. Please note that we will not respond to questions about the policy issues raised in this RFI. We may or may not choose to contact individual responders. Such communications would only serve to further clarify written responses. Contractor support personnel may be used to review RFI responses. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this RFI may be used by the Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Respondents should not include any information that might be considered proprietary or confidential. This RFI should not be construed as a commitment or authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned. We may publically post the comments received, or a summary thereof.
We are soliciting public input on the following areas:
• We are seeking public comment related to whether a bachelor's degree in nursing should be considered equivalent to a bachelor's degree in biological science or should be considered a qualifying degree to meet the CLIA requirements for moderate and high complexity testing personnel as well as for technical consultants.
• We are seeking public comment on what is considered a physical science degree and if a physical science degrees have the educational backgrounds such that all or some should to be considered a qualifying degree to meet the intent of the CLIA requirements at §§ 493.1405, 493.1411, 493.1423, 493.1443, 493.1449, 493.1461, and 493.1489.
• We are seeking public comment related to non-traditional degrees (for example, Regents Bachelor of Arts) specifically whether any of these types of degrees should be considered to meet the requirements for a chemical, physical, biological or clinical laboratory science, and/or medical laboratory technology degrees.
• We are seeking public comment regarding whether general supervisors should be allowed to perform competency assessment for testing personnel performing moderate complexity testing in laboratories that perform both moderate and high complexity testing.
• We are seeking public comment on what is appropriate laboratory training, experience and skills when qualifying all personnel to meet CLIA requirements, and what comprises appropriate documentation to verify the training, experience and skills for all personnel positions in part 493, subpart M.
• We are seeking public comment regarding the feasibility of applying alternative sanctions in cases of PT referral that involve waived testing.
• We are seeking public comment related to applying discretion in situations where we determine that a laboratory has referred its proficiency testing samples to another laboratory and has reported those results from another laboratory as their own, and under what circumstances should that discretion be applied.
• Virtual crossmatching: We are seeking public comment on the acceptability and application of virtual crossmatching in lieu of physical crossmatching for transplantation.
• Criteria and decision making algorithms: We are seeking public comment on appropriate criteria and decision algorithms under which virtual crossmatching would be an appropriate substitute for physical crossmatching. We are also seeking public comment on the existence of commonly accepted current guidelines for virtual crossmatching in histocompatibility.
• Updating histocompatibility regulations: We are seeking public comment on histocompatibility regulations that are no longer necessary because they are obsolete or redundant with requirements found in other sections of the CLIA regulations. We are also seeking public comment on any histocompatibility regulations that should be modified to reflect current practices.
• We are seeking public comments (including information such as evidence, research, and trends) on an alternate method to calculate the average hourly rate for each entity as outlined in § 493.649(b). We are also seeking comment on whether the method should be standardized and updated annually or as needed.
• We are seeking public comment on a methodology that would set a fair and reasonable fee for revised certificate requests. We also seek comment as to whether fees should be nominal and, if nominal, whether such fee would cover the costs associated with the task.
• We are seeking public comment to update the fees for determination of program compliance as well as additional fees to accredited laboratories as outlined in §§ 493.643(b) and 493.645(b) respectively. We are also seeking comment on whether fees collected should be subject to the same ten schedules at § 493.643(c), and whether they should change based on any updates to the methodology for determining the average hourly rate.
• We are seeking public comment on exploring an appropriate methodology for assessing a fair fee for other compliance determination activities to include performing follow-up visits, complaint investigations, and activities associated with imposition of sanctions.
We are also soliciting general feedback from stakeholders on what other areas of CLIA they would potentially have recommendations for changing.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. However, section II of this document does contain a general solicitation of comments in the form of a request for information. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), this general solicitation is exempt from the PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
NMFS issues this proposed rule to amend the regulations governing the fisheries for Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) off the West coast to include annual catch limits (ACLs, which are the maximum allowable fishing levels for each year, for certain monitored finfish stocks (jack mackerel, central population of northern anchovy, northern subpopulation of northern anchovy) under the CPS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). A final rule published October 26, 2016, established these ACLs for the 2017 fishing year only; the purpose of this proposed rule is to codify these ACLs so they remain effective until revised through some future rulemaking. If the ACL for any one of these stocks is reached or projected to be reached, then fishing for that stock will be closed until it reopens at the start of the next fishing season. This rule is intended to conserve and manage these stocks off the U.S. West Coast.
Comments must be received by February 8, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0155, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.
The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801
Management unit stocks in the CPS FMP are classified under three management categories: Active, monitored and prohibited harvest species. Stocks in the active category (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are managed by regular stock assessments and periodic or annual adjustments of target harvest levels based on those stock assessments. Fisheries for these stocks have biologically significant levels of catch, or biological or socioeconomic considerations requiring this type of relatively intense harvest management procedures. In contrast, stocks in the monitored category (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid
In September 2011, NMFS approved Amendment 13 to the CPS FMP, which modified the framework process used to set and adjust fishery specifications and for setting ACLs and accountability measures (AMs). Amendment 13 conformed the CPS FMP with the 2007 amendments to the MSA and the NMFS revised MSA National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310, which for the first time required ACLs be established for management unit species (with exceptions). Specifically, Amendment 13 maintained the existing reference points and the primary harvest control rules for the monitored stocks (jack mackerel, northern anchovy and market squid), including the large uncertainty buffer built into the acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule for the finfish stocks, as well as the overfishing criteria for market squid, but modified these reference points and control rules to align with the revised NS1 guidelines and to comply with the new statutory requirement to establish a process for setting ACLs and AMs. This included a default management framework under which the overfishing limit (OFL) for each monitored stock was set equal to their existing maximum sustainable yield (MSY) value, if available, and ABC values were reduced from the OFL by 75 percent as an uncertainty buffer (in accordance with the existing ABC control rule, under which ABC equals 25 percent of OFL/MSY). ACLs are then set either equal to or lower than the ABC; annual catch targets (ACTs), if deemed necessary, can be set less than or equal to the ACL, primarily to account for potential management uncertainty.
Compared to the management framework for stocks in the active category, which utilizes annual estimates of biomass to calculate the applicable annual harvest levels, the ACLs for the monitored finfish stocks are not based on annual estimates of biomass or any single estimate of biomass. As described above, ACLs for monitored finfish are set at the ABC levels, which are no higher than 25 percent of the OFLs. OFLs are set equal to MSY—an estimate that is intended to reflect the largest average fishing mortality rate or yield that can be taken from a stock over the long term. Although the control rules and harvest policies for monitored CPS stocks are simpler than the active category control rules, the inclusion of a large non-discretionary buffer between the OFL and ABC both protects the stock from overfishing and allows for a small sustainable harvest. In recognition of the low fishing effort and landings for these stocks, the Council chose this type of passive framework to manage monitored finfish because the passive framework has proven sufficient to prevent overfishing while allowing for sustainable annual harvests even when the year-to-year biomasses of these stocks fluctuate.
Although the OFLs and ABCs for these monitored finfish stocks were previously established and are not being revised by this rulemaking, understanding these values is relevant to ACLs because generally the ACL for monitored stocks is expected to be set at ABC. Per the framework that was established through Amendment 13, the OFLs for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy and jack mackerel were set based on MSY values that were established through Amendment 8 to the FMP. In 2015, Amendment 14 to the CPS FMP established an F
Through this action, NMFS is proposing to codify in 50 CFR part 660 subpart I ACLs for the three populations of CPS finfish, which were implemented for calendar year 2017 in the final rule published on October 26, 2016, at 81 FR 74309.
NMFS notes that although the proposed ACLs are equal to their respective ABCs, NMFS has determined that they are still at a level such that overfishing will not occur. The management framework, including the buffer between the OFL and ABC built into the harvest policy for CPS stocks in the monitored category, was recommended by the Council's SSC, adopted by the Council and approved by NMFS as supported by the best available science and as determined in a manner that appropriately accounts for the various types of scientific uncertainty surrounding the OFL. This framework for accounting for uncertainty was subsequently used to establish the existing OFLs and ABCs for these stocks, and NMFS does not propose to revise the existing OFLs and ABCs by this proposed rule. Additionally, setting lower ACLs or establishing additional ACTs to account for management uncertainty is unnecessary at this time, as managers have the ability to manage and track the landings of these fisheries to ensure the ACLs are not exceeded. Catches of the three finfish stocks in the monitored category—northern anchovy (northern and central subpopulations) and jack mackerel—have remained well below their respective ACL (previously ABC) levels since implementation of the CPS FMP in 2000, with average catches in the ten-year period from 2006-2015 of approximately 8,000 mt, 295 mt, and 580 mt for the central and northern subpopulations of northern anchovy and jack mackerel, respectively.
This proposed action will allow the proposed ACLs to remain in place for each subsequent calendar year until changed. The Council and NMFS would consider future changes if landings increase and consistently reach the ABC/ACL level, if new scientific information becomes available to warrant changes, or if changes are made in the future to the existing ABCs or OFLs. The ACLs proposed in this action provide a means to monitor these stocks on an annual basis and prevent overfishing, as each year the total harvest of each stock will be assessed against their respective ACLs. These ACLs would remain in place until changed according to the FMP framework. Except for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy, the OFL and ABC specifications for the rest of these stocks have already been set in the FMP, and NMFS is not establishing or revising them by this action. The OFL and ABC specifications for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy were established in the final rule published October 26, 2016, which established these ACLs for the 2017 fishing year only.
If an ACL is reached, or is expected to be reached for one of these fisheries, the directed fishery would be closed until the beginning of the next fishing season. The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the reasons described below.
The primary action being implemented through this rule as it relates to potential economic impacts on small entities is the codification of multi-year ACLs for the two sub-stocks of northern anchovy and for jack mackerel in the U.S. EEZ off the West coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set ACLs for these fisheries based on the harvest control rules in the FMP.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The average annual per vessel revenue in 2016 for the West Coast CPS finfish small purse seine fleet, as well as the few vessels that target anchovy off of Oregon and Washington, was below $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the SBA size standards. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities, and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. The corresponding annual revenues from these species averaged to about $62,000 and $1,900,000, for jack mackerel and northern anchovy, respectively.
The entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that harvest jack mackerel and northern anchovy as part of the West Coast CPS purse seine fleet. Jack mackerel and northern anchovy are components of the CPS purse seine fishery off the U.S. West Coast, which generally fishes a complex of species, including Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel and market squid. Currently there are 58 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. Annually over the past 5 years, as few as 2 and as many as 57 (an average 22) of these CPS vessels landed anchovy and jack mackerel. Approximately 26 baitfish licenses are issued annually in the state of Washington to harvest northern
To evaluate whether this proposed rule could potentially reduce the profitability of the affected vessels, NMFS compared current and average recent historical landings to the ACLs that would be codified in this proposed rule, if approved. The multi-year ACL (maximum fishing level for each year) for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy is 25,000 mt and for the northern subpopulation ACL is 9,750 mt. In 2016, 6,644 mt of the central population of northern anchovy and 7,263 mt of the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy were landed. The annual average harvest from 2007 to 2016 for the central and northern subpopulations of northern anchovy is 7,400 mt and 910 mt, respectively. The jack mackerel ACL is 31,000 mt. In 2016, approximately 374 mt of jack mackerel were landed and average annual landings of jack mackerel over the last 10 years (2007-2016) was 662 mt. Prior landings of these stocks have been well below the proposed ACLs. Therefore, although codifying ACLs for these stocks is considered a new management measure for these fisheries, based on current and historical landings of these stocks, this proposed action is not expected to result in changes in fishery operations. As a result, it is unlikely that the ACLs that would be codified in this rule, if approved, would limit the profitability of the fleets catching these stocks. Therefore, this action would not have any economic impact, let alone impose a significant economic impact on any of the small entities participating in these fisheries.
Based on the analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
This action does not contain a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(i) The following ACLs apply to fishing for monitored stocks of CPS finfish:
(1)
(2)
(3)
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification.
Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or email address:
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice helps to improve applicants' awareness of the Guarantee Fee rates for Guaranteed Loans for fiscal year (FY) 2018, Maximum Portion of Guarantee Authority Available for FY 2018, Annual Renewal Fee for FY 2018 when applying for guaranteed loans under the Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program.
The Agency has the authority to charge a guarantee fee and an annual renewal fee for loans made under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program. Pursuant to that authority, and subject to the current Continuing Resolution, the Agency is establishing an initial guarantee fee rate of 3 percent and an annual renewal fee rate of one-half of 1 percent for the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program.
The initial guarantee fee is paid at the time the Loan Note Guarantee is issued. The annual renewal fee is paid by the lender to the Agency once a year. Payment of the annual renewal fee is required in order to maintain the enforceability of the guarantee.
Applicability date: January 9, 2018.
Tanner Hinkel, USDA, Rural Development, Business Programs, Business and Industry Division, STOP 3224, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3224, telephone (202) 720-1970, email
As set forth in 7 CFR 4279.120, the Agency has the authority to charge an initial guarantee fee and an annual renewal fee for loans made under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program. Pursuant to that authority, and subject to the current continuing resolution, the Agency is establishing an initial guarantee fee rate of 3 percent and an annual renewal fee rate of one-half of 1 percent for the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program. Unless precluded by a subsequent FY 2018 appropriation, these rates will apply to all loans obligated in FY 2018 that are made under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program. As established in 7 CFR 4279.120(b)(1), the amount of the annual fee on each guaranteed loan will be determined by multiplying the annual fee rate by the outstanding principal loan balance as of December 31, multiplied by the percentage of guarantee.
As set forth in 7 CFR 4279.120(a) and 4279.119(b), each fiscal year, the Agency shall establish a limit on the maximum portion of B&I guarantee authority available for that fiscal year that may be used to guarantee loans with a reduced guarantee fee or guaranteed loans with an increased percentage of guarantee. The Agency has established that not more than 12 percent of the Agency's apportioned B&I guarantee authority will be reserved for loan guarantee requests with a reduced fee, and not more than 15 percent of the Agency's apportioned B&I guarantee authority will be reserved for guaranteed loan requests with an increased percentage of guarantee. Once the respective limits are reached, all
Allowing a reduced guarantee fee or increased percentage of guarantee on certain B&I guaranteed loans that meet the conditions set forth in 7 CFR 4279.120 and 4279.119 will increase the Agency's ability to focus guarantee assistance on projects that the Agency has found particularly meritorious. Subject to annual limits set by the Agency in this notice, the Agency may charge a reduced guarantee fee if requested by the lender for loans of $5 million or less when the borrower's business supports value-added agriculture and results in farmers benefitting financially, promotes access to healthy foods, or is a high impact business development investment located in a rural community that is experiencing long-term population decline; has remained in poverty for the last 30 years; is experiencing trauma as a result of natural disaster; is located in a city or county with an unemployment rate 125 percent of the statewide rate or greater; or is located within the boundaries of a federally recognized Indian tribe's reservation or within tribal trust lands or within land owned by an Alaska Native Regional or Village Corporation as defined by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Subject to annual limits set by the Agency in this notice, the Agency may allow increased percentages of guarantee for high-priority projects or loans where the lender needs the increased percentage of guarantee due to its legal or regulatory lending limit.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee to the Commission will by teleconference at 4:00 p.m. (MST) on Thursday, January 25, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to review and discuss and vote on a draft of the No Aid Report.
Thursday, January 25, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. MST.
Public call-in information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-503-8175 and conference call 4357132.
Evelyn Bohor, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-503-8175 and conference call 4357132. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-503-8175 and conference call 4357132.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1040, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
The Port of Milwaukee, grantee of FTZ 41, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Quad/Graphics, Inc.—Chemical Research\Technology (Quad/Graphics—C\RT), located in Hartford and Sussex, Wisconsin. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 5, 2017.
The applicant indicates that it has submitted a separate application for FTZ designation at the Quad/Graphics—C\RT facility under FTZ 41. The facility is used for the production of offset and gravure publication printing ink. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Quad/Graphics—C\RT from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials noted below, Quad/Graphics—C\RT would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to offset and gravure publication printing ink (duty rate—1.8%). Quad/Graphics—C\RT would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status materials which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials sourced from abroad include: offset pigments (Yellow 174, Red 57:1 and Blue 15:3); gravure pigments (Yellow 14, Yellow 12, Red 57:1 and Blue 15:4); and, flush pigment preparations for offset heat-set publication printing (Yellow 12, Red 57:1 and Blue 15:3) (duty rate—6.5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 20, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
On July 7, 2017, The Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the
Applicable January 9, 2018.
Carrie Bethea, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1491.
On July 7, 2017, Commerce published its
The product covered by the order is honey. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review and new shipper review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
In the
In the
With no new information on the record, Commerce continues to find that it cannot conduct the required
In making our findings, because Sunbeauty was unable to provide evidence of a suspended entry of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR and is thus ineligible to receive a separate rate, we are treating Sunbeauty as part of the China-wide entity, the rate for which is $2.63 per kilogram. Furthermore, because Commerce rescinded the review with respect to Jiangsu Runchen, the company remains a part of the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying our final conclusions,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this new shipper review and administrative review. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from the China-wide entity at the China-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review and new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Jiangsu Runchen and Sunbeauty, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the China-wide rate (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) in this administrative review of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on pure magnesium in granular form from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable January 9, 2018.
Joseph Degreenia, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6430.
On September 6, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the third sunset review of the antidumping duty order
There is an existing antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China.
The scope of this order includes imports of pure magnesium products, regardless of chemistry, including, without limitation, raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes, except as noted above.
Pure magnesium includes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); (3) chemical combinations of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The merchandise subject to this
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Pursuant to section 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the AD Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016. The administrative review covers one mandatory respondent: the collapsed entity Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd./Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd./Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., which we have preliminarily determined to treat as a single entity with Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd (Trina). Commerce preliminarily finds that Trina sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable January 9, 2018.
Krisha Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037.
The merchandise covered by the order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
We preliminarily determine that there is no evidence calling into question the no shipment claims of the following companies: De-Tech Trading Limited HK, Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd., Ningbo ETDZ Holdings, Ltd., Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd., Taizhou BD Trade Co., Ltd., Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd., and Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. For additional information regarding this determination,
Consistent with an announced refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, Commerce is not rescinding this review with respect to these companies, but intends to complete the review of the companies for which it has preliminarily found no evidence of shipments and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
We preliminarily find that Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd./Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd./Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (Trina), which we have preliminarily continued to treat as a single entity, is affiliated with Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd., pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act of 103 (the Act) and all of these companies should be treated as a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)-(2). For additional information,
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that Commerce shall apply FA if (1) necessary information is not on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by Commerce, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that Commerce may use an adverse inference in applying FA (
Trina failed to provide factors of production (FOP) data from certain unaffiliated tollers of inputs used to produce subject merchandise, as well as from certain unaffiliated suppliers of solar cells. We preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to apply AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, with respect to the unreported FOPs for purchased solar cells. These unreported FOPs for solar cells represent a material amount of necessary FOP information. However, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce is applying FA with respect to the unreported FOPs from the unaffiliated tollers. The record indicates that the tolled portions either represent relatively small percentages of the inputs consumed, the tollers only performed a relatively small portion of the total processing involved in producing the input, or the input accounts for a relatively small share of the overall costs of a solar panel. For details regarding these determinations,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the information placed on the record by Trina, as well as by the other companies listed in the rate table in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section below, demonstrates that these companies are entitled to separate rate status. Commerce calculated a rate for the sole mandatory respondent, Trina that is not zero,
Conversely, Commerce preliminarily determines that the following companies have not demonstrated their entitlement to separate rates status because they did not file a separate rate application or certification with Commerce:
Commerce treated these companies as part of the China-wide entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate (
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Commerce calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Given that China is a NME country, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary results of this review,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Commerce intends to disclose to parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results of review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to Commerce's refinement to its practice, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such merchandise at the rate for the China-wide entity.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the
Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for antidumping duties equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties has occurred, and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending its Preliminary Determination of the antidumping duty investigation of certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (mechanical tubing) from India. We are correcting a ministerial error with respect to certain steel grades reported by one of the mandatory respondents, Goodluck India Limited. The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Applicable January 9, 2018.
Susan Pulongbarit and Omar Qureshi, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593, or (202) 482-0987, respectively.
On November 22, 2017, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is mechanical tubing from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (g)(1), Commerce is amending the
On November 22, 2017, the petitioners submitted a ministerial error allegation claiming that Commerce incorrectly reclassified certain grades of steel reported by Goodluck in the
On November 27, 2017, Goodluck also submitted a ministerial error allegation claiming that Commerce incorrectly reclassified certain grades of steel reported by Goodluck in the
We are amending the
The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates established in this amended preliminary determination, in accordance with section 733(d) and (f) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224. Because Goodluck's rate is increasing from the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.
This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
The scope of this investigation covers cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) of circular cross-section, 304.8 mm or more in length, in actual outside diameters less than 331mm, and regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish or industry specification. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is a tubular product with a circular cross-sectional shape that has been cold-drawn or otherwise cold-finished after the initial tube formation in a manner that involves a change in the diameter or wall thickness of the tubing, or both. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may be produced from either welded (
Subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is typically certified to meet industry specifications for cold-drawn tubing including but not limited to:
(1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specifications ASTM A-512, ASTM A-513 Type 3 (ASME
(2) SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications SAE J524, SAE J525, SAE J2833, SAE J2614, SAE J2467, SAE J2435, SAE J2613;
(3) Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) AMS T-6736 (AMS 6736), AMS 6371, AMS 5050, AMS 5075, AMS 5062, AMS 6360, AMS 6361, AMS 6362, AMS 6371, AMS 6372, AMS 6374, AMS 6381, AMS 6415;
(4) United States Military Standards (MIL) MIL-T-5066 and MIL-T-6736;
(5) foreign standards equivalent to one of the previously listed ASTM, ASME, SAE, AMS or MIL specifications including but not limited to:
(a) German Institute for Standardization (DIN) specifications DIN 2391-2, DIN 2393-2, DIN 2394-2);
(b) European Standards (EN) EN 10305-1, EN 10305-2, EN 10305-3, EN 10305-4, EN 10305-6 and European national variations on those standards (
(c) Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) JIS G 3441 and JIS G 3445; and
(6) proprietary standards that are based on one of the above-listed standards.
The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may also be dual or multiple certified to more than one standard. Pipe that is multiple certified as cold-drawn mechanical tubing and to other specifications not covered by this scope, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above.
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.
For purposes of this scope, the place of cold-drawing determines the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Subject merchandise that is subject to minor working in a third country that occurs after drawing in one of the subject countries including, but not limited to, heat treatment, cutting to length, straightening, nondestruction testing, deburring or chamfering, remains within the scope of this investigation.
All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. Merchandise that meets the physical description of cold-drawn mechanical tubing above is within the scope of the investigation even if it is also dual or multiple certified to an otherwise excluded specification listed below. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this investigation:
(1) Cold-drawn stainless steel tubing, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;
(2) products certified to one or more of the ASTM, ASME or American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications listed below:
• ASTM A-53;
• ASTM A-106;
• ASTM A-179 (ASME SA 179);
• ASTM A-192 (ASME SA 192);
• ASTM A-209 (ASME SA 209);
• ASTM A-210 (ASME SA 210);
• ASTM A-213 (ASME SA 213);
• ASTM A-334 (ASME SA 334);
• ASTM A-423 (ASME SA 423);
• ASTM A-498;
• ASTM A-496 (ASME SA 496);
• ASTM A-199;
• ASTM A-500;
• ASTM A-556;
• ASTM A-565;
• API 5L; and
• API 5CT
except that any cold-drawn tubing product certified to one of the above excluded specifications will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this investigation.
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.51.1000, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.50.5030. Subject merchandise may also enter under numbers 7306.30.1000 and 7306.50.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe (WLP) from Korea. The period of review (POR) is May 22, 2015, through November 30, 2016. This administrative review covers 24 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination: Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and SeAH Steel Company (SeAH). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise have been made below normal value (NV) during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable January 9, 2018.
David Goldberger or Ross Belliveau, 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) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4952, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is welded line pipe.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period May 22, 2015, through November 30, 2016:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Hyundai Steel and SeAH reported the entered value for of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the average
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable January 9, 2018.
Courtney Canales at (202) 482-4997 (India) and Ian Hamilton at (202) 482-4798 (the People's Republic of China (China)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On September 5, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of stainless steel flanges from India and China.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioners
On December 18, 2017, the petitioners submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
This notice announces the availability of the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Green Sturgeon (
Comments and information on the draft Plan must be received by close of business on March 12, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document by either of the following methods:
•
•
The draft recovery plan is available online at:
Joe Heublein, NMFS Green Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator, at (916) 930-3719, or
On April 7, 2006, we, NMFS, listed the southern distinct population segment (sDPS) of green sturgeon as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (71 FR 17757). This determination was based on: (1) The fact that the spawning adult population occurred in only one river system (
Recovery plans describe actions beneficial to the conservation and recovery of species listed under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Plan for sDPS green sturgeon was developed by NMFS in cooperation with a recovery team made up of experts from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Water Resources, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, NMFS Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Center, R2 Resource Consultants, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey.
NMFS's goal is to restore the threatened sDPS green sturgeon to the point where it is a self-sustaining species that no longer needs the protections of the ESA. The Plan provides background on the natural history of green sturgeon, population status, and threats to their viability, based on a formal threats assessment. The Plan lays out a recovery strategy to address the threats based on the best available science, identifies site-specific actions with time lines and costs, and includes recovery goals and criteria.
In order to recover sDPS green sturgeon, recovery actions within the Plan aim to restore passage and habitat, reduce mortality and poaching, address threats in the areas of contaminants, predation, and sediment loading, and forecast sDPS habitat and distribution changes with climate change. Most of the recovery efforts focus on the Sacramento River Basin and San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary environments, as threats in spawning and rearing habitats were considered the greatest impediments to recovery. To better inform the recovery process, the Plan further characterizes research priorities in these areas as well as in the areas of competition for habitat, altered prey base, non-native species, oil and chemical spills, and disease.
The Plan is not regulatory, but presents guidance for use by agencies and interested parties to assist in the recovery of sDPS green sturgeon. The Plan identifies substantive actions needed to achieve recovery by assessing the species' population abundance, distribution, and diversity and addressing the threats to the species. When determining recovery actions, the Plan prioritized actions that address the most important threats, improve understanding of whether a particular threat is limiting recovery, and improve our understanding of, and ability to manage, that threat. The actions in the Plan include research, management, monitoring, and outreach efforts, because a comprehensive approach to green sturgeon recovery is likely to have greater success than focusing on any one type of action.
We expect the Plan to inform section 7 consultations with Federal agencies under the ESA and to support other ESA decisions, such as considering permits under section 10. We have already begun implementation of several actions and research priorities as described in the plan, such as partnering with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to reduce poaching and stranding of green sturgeon and improve knowledge of the impacts of fisheries bycatch. After public comment and the adoption of the Final Recovery Plan, we will continue to implement actions in the plan for which we have authority, encourage other Federal and state agencies to implement recovery actions for which they have responsibility and authority, and work cooperatively with them on the implementation of those actions.
The total time and cost to recovery are difficult to predict. The Plan outlines 19 recovery actions, as well as 17 research, eight monitoring, and two education and outreach priorities. An estimated
Many of the most costly recovery actions (
We are unable to quantify the economic benefits of sDPS green sturgeon recovery actions, but full recovery or delisting will provide multiple benefits to the ecosystem and economy. Delisting of the sDPS will enhance fishing opportunities by lifting fisheries restrictions aimed at reducing direct or incidental sDPS mortality. The ESA regulatory burden will also be eased for fisheries, water resource, industrial, and commercial activities. Accomplishing the habitat restoration measures will also result in more functional ecosystems that support other economic activities and contribute to delisting of other species.
The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (see
16 U.S.C. 1531
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public comment period for the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision.
Nina Garfield at (240) 533-0817 or Kim Texeira at (240) 533-0781 of NOAA's Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Notice is hereby given that the Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce is announcing a thirty-day public comment period for the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision. Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), the revised plan will bring the reserve into compliance. The Jacques Cousteau Reserve revised plan will replace the plan approved in 2009.
The revised management plan outlines the administrative structure; the research/monitoring, stewardship, education, and training programs and priorities of the reserve; plans for a proposed future boundary expansion through inclusion of past and future land acquisition; and facility development priorities to support reserve operations.
The Jacques Cousteau Reserve takes an integrated approach to management, linking research and education, coastal training, and stewardship functions. The Rutgers University has outlined how it will administer the reserve and its core programs by providing detailed actions that will enable it to accomplish specific goals and objectives. Since the last management plan, the reserve has: Provided technical expertise to coastal communities to reduce risks to natural hazards; expanded monitoring programs; installed a sentinel site for monitoring marsh ecosystem response to sea level rise; upgraded exhibits; conducted training workshops; implemented K-12 education programs; purchased a marsh; installed a trail; and promoted reclamation of ghost crab pots.
The total number of acres within the boundary is 116,116 acres, which is a modification of the original 114,665 acres identified in the previous management plan. The revised acreage is a result of updated mapping techniques rather than a boundary expansion resulting from inclusion of new habitats. The revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the Jacques Cousteau Reserve for the next five years.
NOAA's Office Coastal Management will be conducting an environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act on the proposed approval of the Reserve's revised management plan. The public is invited to provide comment or information about any potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, and these comments will be used to inform the decision making process.
View the Jacques Cousteau Reserve Management Plan revision at (
Monday, January 8, 2018; 1:00 p.m.*
* The Commission unanimously determined by recorded vote that Agency business requires calling the meeting without seven calendar days advance public notice.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Compliance Matter: The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of a compliance matter.
Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, Office of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Amendment to Notice of Public Meeting.
The Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel (SNAP) and subcommittee Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) will meet to discuss materials in support of two studies: “Use and Acquisition of Unmanned Systems in the Department of the Navy” and “Improving Governance in the Department of the Navy.” These sessions will be open to the public, with exception to any specific deliberations which may include the review of classified material.
The meeting will be held on Monday, January 8, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification concerning its meeting along with a meeting of the Naval Research Advisory Committee, a subcommittee of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel on January 8, 2018, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
The meeting will be held at the Pentagon, Conference Center, Room B5.
James Custer, Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Navy for Policy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 52b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Public access is limited due to Pentagon security requirements. Members of the public wishing to attend this event must enter through the Pentagon Visitors' Center adjacent to the Pentagon's Metro Station Entrance. All Pentagon visitors must present two forms of valid government-issued photo identification. All visitors and belongings are required to go through security screening. All belongings are required to pass through an x-ray machine. With the exception of Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders, Pentagon visitors are required to have a sponsor/escort for access into the Pentagon and must be escorted at all times. Members wishing to attend this meeting must have completed all security procedures no later than 09:15 p.m. to receive a visitor badge and depart the waiting area with their sponsor/escort. Guests requiring escort will be escorted directly to the meeting room and access will be limited to areas related to meeting activities. Members of the public shall remain with designated escorts at all times while on the Pentagon reservation. Upon completion of the period of meeting open to the public, guests will be escorted to the building exit. Members of the public with questions regarding visitor access to the Pentagon may call 703-693-3953.
To request a sponsor and escort for the open session of this meeting, at least 5 days in advance of the meeting, email
To contact the DFO, write to: Designated Federal Officer, Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Navy for Policy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 8, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tanyelle Richardson, 202-453-6391.
The Department of Education (ED), in
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Notice.
The Standards Board will conduct committee breakout sessions and hear committee reports. The Executive Board of the Standards Board may appoint Standards Board committee members and chairs, and consider other administrative matters.
This meeting will be open to the public.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 12, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Beginning in the 1980s, the Commission adopted a series of regulations to implement statutory directives requiring wireline telephone handsets in the United States (for use with the legacy telephone network) to be hearing aid compatible. In 2010, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), Public Law 111-260, sec. 102, 710(b), 124 Stat. 2751, 2753 (CVAA) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 610(b)),
The information collections contain third-party disclosure and labeling requirements. The information is used to inform consumers who purchase or use wireline telephone equipment whether the telephone is hearing aid compatible; to ensure that manufacturers comply with applicable regulations and technical criteria; to ensure that information about ACS telephonic CPE is available in a database administered by the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments (ACTA); and to facilitate the filing of complaints about the ACS telephonic CPE.
• 47 CFR 68.224 requires that every non-hearing aid compatible wireline telephone used with the legacy wireline network that is offered for sale to the public contain in a conspicuous location on the surface of its packaging a statement that the telephone is not hearing aid compatible. If the handset is offered for sale without a surrounding package, then the telephone must be affixed with a written statement that the telephone is not hearing aid compatible. In addition, each handset must be accompanied by instructions in accordance with 47 CFR 62.218(b)(2).
• 47 CFR 68.300 requires that all wireline telephones used with the legacy wireline network that are manufactured in the United States (other than for export) or imported for use in the United States and that are hearing aid compatible have the letters “HAC” permanently affixed.
• New § 68.502(a) of the Commission's rules contains information collection requirements for ACS telephonic CPE that are similar to the HAC label and notice requirements in 47 CFR 68.224 and 68.300 (discussed above),
• New § 68.501 of the Commission's rules requires responsible parties to obtain certifications of their equipment by using a third-party Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB) or a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. (A responsible party is the party, such as the manufacturer, that is responsible for the compliance of ACS telephonic CPE with the hearing aid compatibility rules and other applicable technical criteria. A Supplier's Declaration of Conformity is a procedure whereby a responsible party makes measurements or takes steps to ensure that CPE complies with technical standards, which results in a document by the same name.) Section 68.501 of the Commission's rules applies to ACS telephonic CPE rule sections defining the roles of TCBs and the uses of Supplier's Declarations of Conformity for wireline handsets used with the legacy telephone network.
• New § 68.504 of the Commission's rules requires information about ACS telephonic CPE to be included in a database administered by ACTA. (ACTA is an organization, previously created pursuant to FCC regulations, whose key function is to maintain a database of telephone equipment.) In addition, ACS telephonic CPE must be labeled as required by ACTA.
• New § 68.502(b)-(d) of the Commission's rules requires responsible parties to: Warrant that ACS telephonic CPE complies with applicable regulations and technical criteria; give the user instructions required by ACTA for ACS telephonic CPE that is hearing aid compatible; give the user a notice for ACS telephonic CPE that is not hearing aid compatible; and notify the purchaser or user of ACS telephonic CPE whose approval is revoked, that the purchaser or user must discontinue its use.
• New § 68.503 of the Commission's rules requires manufacturers of ACS telephonic CPE to designate an agent for service of process for complaints that may be filed at the FCC.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 8, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 12, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
On July 14, 2017 the Federal Communications Commission released
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 2, 2018.
1.
Upon the acquisition of CBC National Bank, CBC National Bank will merge into First Federal's subsidiary, First Federal Bank of Florida, Lake City, Florida.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 23, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 2, 2018.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age meeting. Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age is an initiative to improve patient care and health outcomes by working to ensure that clinical guidelines are not only evidence-based but also are used in practice. Because there are multiple roles in developing and disseminating clinical guidelines, it is important to get a comprehensive understanding of the current challenges in translating guidelines in order to develop a standardized process for the future. The meeting will use the Kaizen approach to ensure stakeholder perspectives and experiences along the clinical guideline continuum are collected. Kaizen focuses on continuous improvement by bringing together stakeholders to gather individual perspectives and experiences so that improvements can be made to a specific area of focus in a process. Additional information about Kaizen is available at the Electronic Clinical Quality Improvement Resource Center website (
The meeting will be held February 5-9, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST each day.
The meeting will be held at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Century Center Campus, 2500 Century Parkway, Atlanta, GA 30345. You should be aware that the meeting location is in a Federal government facility; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. For additional information, please see CDC Security Guidelines under
Maria Michaels, Office of the Director; Office of Public Health Scientific Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-E-33, Atlanta, GA 30333, phone: (404) 498-0997, email:
Century Center Campus Security Guidelines: The CDC Century Center Campus is located at 2500 Century Parkway NE, Atlanta, GA 30345. The meeting is being held in a Federal government facility; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable.
All meeting attendees must RSVP by the dates outlined under MEETING ACCESSIBILITY. In planning your arrival time, please take into account the need to park and clear security. Upon arrival at the facility, visitors must present government-issued photo identification (
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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 February 8, 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.
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 February 8, 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:
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.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released Premium Review Grants in four funding opportunity cycles. Grant recipients must states submit the following to the Secretary for each grant cycle, as applicable: Quarterly reports—30 days after the quarter has ended for the entire duration of the grant; Annual report—This report does not contain data, but instead documents the progress toward establishing or enhancing an Effective Rate Review Program and/or a Data Center; Final report—This report is due at the end of the grant period.
The final rule “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Health Insurance Market Rules; Rate Review” (78 FR 13406, February 27, 2013) modified criteria and factors for states to have an Effective Rate Review Program. These changes were necessary to reflect market reform provisions and to fulfill the statutory requirement that the Secretary, in conjunction with the states, monitor premium increases of health insurance coverage offered through an Exchange and outside of an Exchange.
CMS is authorized under 45 CFR 154.301(d) to evaluate whether, and to what extent, a state's circumstances have changed such that it has begun to or has ceased to satisfy the Effective Rate Review Program criteria. States respond to a questionnaire annually via the Health Insurance Oversight System (HIOS), a web-based data collection system commonly used on a regular basis. All submissions are made electronically and no paper submissions are required. CMS is not requesting any changes to the questionnaire at this time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by March 12, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 12, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting
The purpose of the Small Health Care Provider Quality Improvement Grant (Rural Quality) Program is to provide support to rural primary care providers for implementation of quality improvement activities. The program promotes the development of an evidence-based culture and delivery of coordinated care in the primary care setting. Additional objectives of the program include improved health outcomes for patients, enhanced chronic disease management, and better engagement of patients and their caregivers. Organizations participating in the program are required to use an evidence-based quality improvement model; develop, implement and assess effectiveness of quality improvement initiatives; and use health information technology (HIT) to collect and report data. HIT may include an electronic patient registry or an electronic health record, and is a critical component for improving quality and patient outcomes. With HIT, it is possible to generate timely and meaningful data, which helps providers track and plan care.
The proposed Rural Quality draft measures reflect a reduced number of measures: 25 total (previously 43), which includes 18 required measures applicable to all awardees in addition to 7 optional measures. Proposed revisions specifically include the following: (1) Alignment of clinical measures to current National Quality Forum endorsement recommendations and (2) broadened orientation of measures for improved applicability across variety of rural quality improvement project topic areas.
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 12, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering 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.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announces that it will hold a public listening session on Wednesday, January 31, 2018, to solicit information concerning the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records regulations as required by Section 11002 of the 21st Century Cures Act. The listening session will provide an opportunity for the public to provide input to SAMHSA concerning the effect of part 2 on “patient care, health outcomes, and patient privacy” as well as potential regulatory changes and future subregulatory guidance.
The listening session will be held on Wednesday, January 31, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. (Eastern) to 1:00 p.m. (Eastern).
For information concerning the listening session, please contact Rachel Karton, Senior Legislative and Regulatory Analyst, SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (240) 276-0416 or email
•
•
To register, go to:
•
•
The implementing regulations, 42 CFR part 2, were first promulgated as a final rule on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27802), and substantively updated in 1987 (52 FR 21796). On February 9, 2016, SAMHSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding substantive changes to part 2 (81 FR 6987) and on January 18, 2017, SAMHSA finalized changes to these regulations (82 FR 6052). The January 2017 final rule became effective on March 21, 2017 (see 82 FR 10863, Feb. 16, 2017). This final rule was intended to “ensure that patients with substance use disorders have the ability to participate in and benefit from health system delivery improvements, including from new integrated health care models while providing appropriate privacy safeguards.” The final rule made substantive changes to regulatory provisions regarding Definitions (§ 2.11), Applicability (§ 2.12), Confidentiality restrictions and safeguards (§ 2.13), Security for records (§ 2.16), Disposition of records by discontinued programs (§ 2.19), Consent requirements (§ 2.31), Re-disclosure (§ 2.32), Medical emergencies (§ 2.51), Research (§ 2.52), and Audit and evaluation (§ 2.53).
Concurrently with finalizing these changes, SAMHSA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on January 18, 2017, proposing additional changes to facilitate disclosures by lawful holders to their contractors, subcontractors, and legal representative for the purposes of payment and health care operations and for carrying out an audit or evaluation and to permit disclosures by lawful holders to those conducting audits and evaluations on behalf of a governmental agency providing financial assistance to or regulatory oversight over the lawful holder. SAMHSA also sought comments on other topics, including an option for an abbreviated prohibition on re-disclosure notice. In January 2018, SAMHSA published a final rule implementing these changes.
In response to the 2016 NPRM and since publication of the January 2017 final rule and the SNPRM, SAMHSA has already heard from numerous stakeholders on a range of issues pertaining to part 2. For instance, some commenters asserted that part 2 has become a barrier to integration of care and research. Many commenters also have suggested that part 2 does not adequately align with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). SAMHSA also has received many comments emphasizing the continuing importance of part 2 in protecting patients who seek substance use disorder treatment from discrimination in housing, employment, education, and other settings as well as from criminal investigation and penalties. Some commenters also have urged SAMHSA to update part 2 penalty provisions and prevent what they believe to be misuse of patient identifying information.
On December 13, 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law (Pub. L. 114-255). Section 11002 of this law requires that, within one year of the effective date of the final rule, “the Secretary [HHS] shall convene relevant stakeholders to determine the effect of such regulations on patient care, health outcomes, and patient privacy.” The listening session on January 31, 2018, will solicit input focused on how part 2 impacts patient care, health outcomes and patient privacy as well as potential regulatory changes and future subregulatory guidance. It is important to note that any recommendations of further changes to part 2 received during this meeting could, even if legally permissible and feasible, only be implemented after notice-and-comment as required by the Administrative Procedures Act.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) National Advisory Council (NAC) will meet on February 14, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. E.D.T. The CMHS NAC will convene in both open and closed sessions on February 14, 2018.
The closed portion of the meeting will include discussion and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. as determined by the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d).
The remainder of this meeting will be open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., E.D.T., to include discussion of the Center's policy issues, presentations on SAMHSA's Policy Lab, Disaster Responses and a conversation with the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use.
Attendance by the public will be limited to available space. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person (below) on or before January 31, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation. Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Council website at
The meeting can be accessed via telephone. To obtain the conference call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register at the SAMHSA's Advisory Council website at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice advises the public that the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties will remain the same from the previous quarter. For the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2018, the interest rates for overpayments will be 3 percent for corporations and 4 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 4 percent for both corporations and non-corporations. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
The rates announced in this notice are applicable as of January 1, 2018.
Shandy Plicka, Revenue Division, Collection and Refunds Branch, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite #100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278; telephone (317) 298-1717.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the
The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2017-25, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2018, and ending on March 31, 2018. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of four percent (4%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of three percent (3%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of four percent (4%). These interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties are the same from the previous quarter. These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2018, and ending June 30, 2018.
For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Common Performance Reporting,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before February 8, 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-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for
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 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
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
On December 29, 2017, the Postal Service filed the FY 2017 Performance Report and FY 2018 Performance Plan with its FY 2017 Annual Compliance Report. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Each year the Postal Service must submit to the Commission its most recent annual performance plan and annual performance report. 39 U.S.C.
The FY 2018 Plan reviews the Postal Service's plans for FY 2018. The FY 2017 Report discusses the Postal Service's progress during FY 2017 toward its four performance goals:
Each year, the Commission must evaluate whether the Postal Service met the performance goals established in the annual performance plan and annual performance report. 39 U.S.C. 3653(d). The Commission may also “provide recommendations to the Postal Service related to the protection or promotion of public policy objectives set out in” title 39.
Since Docket No. ACR2013, the Commission has evaluated whether the Postal Service met its performance goals in reports separate from the Annual Compliance Determination.
• Did the Postal Service meet its performance goals in FY 2017?
• Do the FY 2017 Report and the FY 2018 Plan meet applicable statutory requirements, including 39 U.S.C. 2803 and 2804?
• What recommendations should the Commission provide to the Postal Service that relate to protecting or promoting public policy objectives in title 39?
• What recommendations or observations should the Commission make concerning the Postal Service's strategic initiatives?
• What other matters are relevant to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2017 Report and the FY 2018 Plan under 39 U.S.C. 3653(d)?
Comments by interested persons are due no later than February 8, 2018. Reply comments are due no later than February 22, 2018. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is appointed to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding with respect to issues related to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2017 Report and the FY 2018 Plan.
1. The Commission invites public comment on the Postal Service's FY 2017 Report and FY 2018 Plan.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding with respect to issues related to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2017 Report and the FY 2018 Plan.
3. Comments are due no later than February 8, 2018.
4. Reply comments are due no later than February 22, 2018.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold a meeting on January 24, 2018, 10:00 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.
For the Board.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change of DTC is annexed hereto as Exhibit 5.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would amend the Procedures set forth in the Settlement Guide relating to the amount a Participant is required to Deposit
DTC maintains a cash Participants Fund in an aggregate amount based on maintaining liquidity resources sufficient to complete net settlement among non-defaulting Participants if a Participant, or Affiliated Family of Participants, with the largest net settlement obligation failed to settle.
The Required Participants Fund Deposit of each Participant is calculated on a daily basis.
Pursuant to the Settlement Guide, if there is a significant increase to the Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit as calculated on an intra-month Business Day, such that the increase meets the Standard Threshold, the Participant is required to Deposit the difference between its Actual Participants Fund Deposit and its Required Participants Fund Deposit.
As mentioned above, the proposed rule change would amend the Procedures set forth in the Settlement Guide relating to the amount a Participant is required to Deposit to the Participants Fund to satisfy a Deficiency, due to an increase to its Required Participants Fund Deposit, as calculated on an intra-month basis.
The Settlement Guide does not specify the Reference Amount used for the purpose of determining the Standard Threshold. In practice, DTC designates the Reference Amount for a Participant to be the Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit relating to the most recent event that required the Participant to Deposit an additional amount to the Participants Fund. This would be the most recent occurrence, as it relates to the Participant, of (a) a month-end calculation, (b) an intra-month calculation that meets the Standard Threshold resulting in a collection of a Deficiency, or (c) an adjustment to the Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit pursuant to Rule 9(A),
(a) The last Business Day of the prior month;
(b) the most recent intra-month Business Day (prior to the then current Business Day), when the amount resulting from daily calculation of the Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit met or exceeded either the Standard Threshold or the Watch List Threshold and a deficit collection was effectuated pursuant to the intra-month collection procedures specified in the Settlement Guide; or
(c) the most recent intra-month Business Day (prior to the then current Business Day) when DTC effected an adjustment to the Participant's Required Participants Fund Deposit pursuant to Rule 9(A).
Pursuant to the Rules and Settlement Guide, DTC maintains the ability to seek additional assurances
In this regard, DTC uses the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, the Watch List and the enhanced surveillance to manage and monitor default risks of Participants on an ongoing basis.
In addition to the above, pursuant to Rule 9(A), if DTC becomes concerned with a Participant's operational or financial soundness, DTC may require adequate assurances of financial or operational capacity from the Participant, as a risk mitigant,
In determining whether it is appropriate to require a Participant to Deposit an additional amount to the Participants Fund for a Participant, DTC takes into account credit, market, operational or other concerns regarding the Participant. Typically, the following factors may be considered, including: (i) The Participant's liquidity arrangements; (ii) the Participant's overall financial condition; (iii) published news or reports and/or regulatory observations relating to the Participant; and (iv) the Participant's internal credit rating, if any.
As a further mitigant of risks presented by Participants that present heightened risk to DTC, and in light of the fact that a Participant's internal credit rating is a contributing factor to both DTC's determination to add a Participant to the Watch List and/or make an adjustment with respect to the Participant's Required Participants Required Participants Fund Deposit, the proposed rule change would amend the Settlement Guide to add the Watch List Threshold.
As mentioned above, the proposed rule change relating to the Watch List Threshold would reflect criteria DTC currently uses in practice for Participants that have been placed on the Watch List, to determine whether a Participant that has been placed on the Watch List must Deposit additional amount to the Participants Fund to satisfy a Deficiency. The Watch List Threshold is lower than the Standard Threshold and, when met, would require the Participant to Deposit the full amount of any Deficiency. The proposed rule change would add text to the Settlement Guide stating that the Watch List Threshold would apply to a Participant if its Required Participants Fund Deposit increases and the difference between the Required Participants Fund Deposit and the Reference Amount equals or is greater than 10 percent of the Reference Amount.
The proposed rule change would also include technical and clarifying changes to the text of the “Settlement of Participants Fund Deposits” section of the Settlement Guide:
(a) To revise and re-order existing text for enhanced readability and flow of content;
(b) to add subheadings with respect to provisions relating to (i) settlement of Required Participants Fund Deposits calculated at the end of a month, (ii) collection of Required Participants Fund Deposits calculated on an intra-month basis, (iii) return of any amount by which a Participant's Actual Participants Fund Deposit exceeds its Required Participants Fund Deposit;
(c) to revise informal references to terms already defined in the Rules to use the actual defined terms, as applicable, including changing references from (i) “requirement” to “Required Participants Fund Deposit, (ii) referring informally to a Participant's “deposit” to “Actual Participants Fund Deposit” and (iii) “business day” to “Business Day”; and
(d) to make grammatical corrections.
The proposed rule change would be effective upon approval of the proposed rule change by the Commission.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”)
The proposed rule change is also designed to be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) of the Act.
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change to add provisions to the Settlement Guide relating to the Watch List Threshold, as discussed above, would impact competition.
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change to codify in the Settlement Guide the criteria DTC currently uses to determine the Reference Amount would impact competition.
Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
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.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, 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 update Rule 21.1, Rule 21.10, and Rule 21.17 to make modifications to the Exchange's rules and functionality applicable to the Exchange's options platform (“BZX Options”) in preparation for the technology migration of the Exchange's affiliated options exchanges onto the same technology as the Exchange.
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.
In 2016, the Exchange and its affiliates Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) received approval to affect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's then-current indirect parent company, Bats Global Markets, Inc., with Cboe Global Markets f/k/a CBOE Holdings, Inc. (“Cboe”), the direct parent of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”) and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“C2 Options”, and together with the Exchange, EDGX, and Cboe Options the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”).
The Exchange is proposing to adopt periodic but relatively minor changes to functionality in order to reduce risk in connection with the technology migration described above; this proposal is related to two such proposed changes. First, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain risk functionality in Rule 21.17, which is based on functionality on Cboe Options, C2 Options and/or the options trading platform operated by EDGX (“EDGX Options”). The Exchange notes that it also proposes to make a related change to Rule 21.1 to eliminate functionality that overlaps with the proposed risk functionality. Second, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 21.10 to allow it to provide additional information on transaction reports.
The Exchange currently provides certain controls to Users
Rule 21.17 currently permits the Exchange to share a User's risk settings with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of the User, which is a provision that the Exchange does not propose to modify. Rule 21.17 does not currently describe any applicable risk settings. As noted above, though certain risk settings offered for Users of BZX Options are codified in Rule 21.16, other optional risk settings offered by the Exchange are more generally described in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.13 and have been described in other filings previously made by the Exchange.
As a general matter, the Exchange proposes to adopt various numeric values that would apply to the risk settings offered by the Exchange. Consistent with the rules of EDGX Options,
The first risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Market Order NBBO Width Protection. As proposed, if a User submits a Market Order
The second risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Limit Order Fat Finger Check. As proposed, if a User submits a buy (sell) limit order to the System with a price that is more than a buffer amount established by the Exchange above (below) the NBO (NBB), or, in the case of an order received prior to 9:30 a.m., above (below) the midpoint of the NBBO at the close of the market on the previous trading day, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the limit order. The proposed Limit Order Fat Finger Check is based on and similar to certain Limit Order Price Parameters set forth in C2 Options Rule 6.17(b). In particular, similar to C2 Options Rule 6.17(b)(1) and (b)(2), the Exchange would reject or cancel limit orders that are more than an acceptable difference from the applicable reference price and
The third risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Buy Order Put Check. As proposed, if a User enters a buy limit order for a put with a price that is higher than or equal to the strike price of the option, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the limit order. Similarly, if a User enters a buy Market Order for a put that would execute at (or the remaining portion would execute at) a price higher than or equal to the strike price of the option, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the Market Order (or remaining portion). The Exchange does not propose to apply this check to adjusted options. The proposed Buy Order Put Check is based on and substantively identical to the Put Strike Price Value Check set forth in C2 Options Rule 6.17(d)(1)(A). The Exchange notes that it does not currently have an analogous risk control in place, and thus, this protection is an additive control to protect against erroneous executions.
The fourth and final risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Drill-Through Price Protection. As proposed, the Drill-Through Price Protection feature is a price protection mechanism applicable to all orders under which a buy (sell) order will not be executed at a price that is higher (lower) than the NBO (NBB) at the time of order entry plus (minus) a buffer amount established by the Exchange (the “Drill-Through Price”). If a buy (sell) order would execute or post to the BZX Options Book at a price higher (lower) than the Drill-Through Price, the System will instead post the order to the BZX Options Book at the Drill-Through Price, unless the terms of the order instruct otherwise. Any order (or unexecuted portion thereof) will rest in the BZX Options Book (based on the time at which it enters the book for priority purposes) for a time period in milliseconds that may not exceed three seconds with a price equal to the Drill-Through Price. If the order (or unexecuted portion thereof) does not execute during that time period, the System will cancel it. While similar to and based on C2 Options Rule 6.17(a)(2), the proposed Rule is more directly based on Interpretation and Policy .04, to EDGX Options Rule 21.20, which describes Drill-Through Price Protection applicable to complex orders on EDGX Options. The proposed Drill-Through Price Protection is identical to Interpretation and Policy .04 to EDGX Options Rule 21.20 with the exceptions of necessary differences between language related to simple orders and complex orders and that in contrast to a User being able to modify the protection to a more or less restrictive control, which is available for the control on EDGX Options for complex orders, the Exchange proposes to apply standard Drill-Through Price Protection to all orders and such protection cannot be modified.
In connection with the changes described above, the Exchange proposes to remove a portion of the definition of a [sic] Market Orders to remove a risk protection currently in place that overlaps with various risk controls described above. Market Orders are currently defined in in Rule 21.1(d)(5) as “orders to buy or sell at the best price available at the time of execution.” Rule 21.1(d)(5) further states that “[a]ny portion of a Market Order that would execute at a price more than $0.50 or 5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time the order initially reaches BZX Options, whichever is greater, will be cancelled.” The Exchange proposes to remove this price protection for Market Orders because it is no longer necessary in light of the proposed risk controls described above (other than the Limit Order Fat Finger Check, which is inapplicable to Market Orders). In particular, the Drill-Through Price Protection provides a control with respect to the execution prices of Market Orders and would be duplicative of the existing control.
The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 21.10, Anonymity, to allow it to provide additional information on transaction reports. Current Rule 21.10(a) states that “[t]he intra-day transaction reports produced by the System will indicate the details of the transactions, and shall not reveal contra party identities.” The Exchange notes that this provision is consistent with Rule 11.15(d) of its cash equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) but is not a common provision in the rules of other options exchanges, including Cboe Options or C2 Options, which do not have such a provision. The Exchange currently provides details regarding contra-parties on various end of day and end of month reports for clearing purposes, and this information is similarly readily available through the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for clearing purposes.
The Exchange proposes to remove the restriction on providing contra party identities and to specifically state that aggregated and individual transaction reports produced by the System will indicate the details of a User's transactions, including the contra party's MPID, capacity, and clearing firm account number.
Current paragraph (c) of Rule 21.10 contains three exceptions to the general rule of anonymity, providing that the “Exchange shall reveal a User's identity in the following circumstances: (1) For regulatory purposes or to comply with an order of an arbitrator or court; (2) if both Users to the transaction consent; (3) Unless otherwise instructed by a User, the Exchange will reveal to a User, no later than the end of the day on the date an anonymous trade was executed, when the User's Order has been decremented by another Order submitted by that same User.” The Exchange proposes to retain only the first exception, regarding regulatory purposes or to comply with an order of
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed amendment will reduce complexity and increase the understanding of the Exchange's operations for all Users of the Exchange. In particular, by adopting certain mandatory risk controls, the Exchange's functionality will be more similar to that of Cboe Options and C2 Options. In turn, when Cboe Options and C2 Options are migrated to the same technology as that of the Exchange, Users of the Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges will have access to similar functionality on all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. As such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed price protection mechanisms and risk controls will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering orders and quotes at unintended prices, and risks associated with orders and quotes trading at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. While the Exchange has previously offered many risk controls under Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.13 and other filings previously made by the Exchange,
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule 21.10 that will permit the Exchange to provide additional detail in transaction reports is consistent with the rules of other options exchanges that do not contain explicit restrictions on providing such information. The proposed changes are similarly consistent with a variety of current Exchange and options industry practices, including the fact that clearing information available through OCC already provides contra-party information, as well as the ability of a User on the Exchange to disclose their identity when quoting.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposal will further promote consistency between the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges, and is part of a larger technology integration that will ultimately reduce complexity for Users of the Exchange that are also participants on other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will have any direct impact on competition. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule in the following respects: (i) Modify the Simple Order rebate applicable to Specialists
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule in the following respects: (i) Modify the Simple Order rebate applicable to Specialists and Market Makers for adding liquidity in SPY; (ii) establish a new $0.05 per contract surcharge for Customers whose SPY Complex Orders execute against simple Market Maker or Specialist orders resting on the Simple Order Book; (iii) reduce the per contract credit that certain member organizations are entitled to receive when routing away more than 5,000 Customer contracts per day in a given month; and (iv) increase permit fees for Floor Brokers and Floor Specialists and Market Makers.
The Exchange first proposes to amend Section I.A. of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, which sets forth a schedule of rebates and fees for adding and removing liquidity in SPY with respect to Simple Orders. Presently, the Pricing Schedule provides that Customers and Specialists are entitled to a rebate to the extent that they add a requisite amount of electronically executed Simple Order contracts per day in a given month in SPY. The existing rebate varies on a five tier basis, which each tier corresponding to a range of average daily volumes (“ADV”) of Simple Order contracts in SPY added per month. The Exchange now proposes to add a sixth tier to this Pricing Schedule. Specifically, it proposes to amend Tier 4 by adjusting the applicable ADV range from 20,000 to 49,999 to 20,000 to 34,999 contracts per day in SPY in a month and by decreasing the applicable per contract rebate from $0.31 to $0.27 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to establish a new Tier 5, which will provide for a $0.30 per contract rebate that Customers and Specialists will receive for adding an ADV of between 35,000 and 49,999 contracts per day in SPY in a month. Finally, the Exchange proposes to rename the existing Tier 5 as Tier 6. The rebate applicable to the new Tier 6 will remain $0.35 per contract for an ADV of greater than 49,999 contracts per day in SPY in a month.
The Exchange proposes the foregoing amendments, which will reduce the rebate amount from that which applies to existing Tier 4 to that which will apply to new Tiers 4 and 5, so as to provide a greater incentive to Specialists and Market Makers to seek to qualify for the top tier of rebates (new Tier 6). The Exchange also proposes to split the existing Tier 4 into two tiers to provide for a more graduated transition among tiers in the Pricing Schedule.
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Section I.B of the Pricing Schedule, which sets forth a schedule of rebates and fees for adding and removing liquidity in SPY with respect to Complex Orders. Presently, the Pricing Schedule charges Customers no fees for adding or removing Complex Orders in SPY even as it charges fees to other categories of member organizations for doing the same, including Market Makers and Specialists.
Customers submit Complex Orders to the Exchange because often, Customers are able to execute such Complex Orders immediately by executing the individual components thereof through interactions with Market Maker and Specialist quotes that rest on the Exchange's Simple Order Book. These Customers benefit from not having to wait for counterparties that are willing to execute against their Complex Orders in the Complex Order Book.
Going forward, the Exchange proposes to impose a $0.05 per contract surcharge on Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker or Specialist quotes resting on the Simple Order Book. The Exchange proposes this surcharge to reduce the costs to it of such transactions. Not only does the Exchange receive no fees from Customers for engaging in these transactions, but the Exchange also pays rebates to the Market Makers and Specialists whose quotes execute against the Customers' Complex Orders. Pursuant to Section I.A. of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, these rebates range from $0.15 to $0.35 per contact.
Third, the Exchange proposes to amend Section V of its Pricing Schedule, which sets forth the fees it charges to Customers and Non-Customers for routing orders away from the Exchange. Presently, Section V pays a credit (equal to a Fixed Fee plus $0.05 per contract)
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Section VI of the Pricing Schedule, which sets forth the Exchange's membership fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase its monthly Permit Fees for Floor Brokers, Floor Specialists and Market Makers. The Exchange presently charges Floor Brokers a monthly Permit Fee of $3,000 and it now proposes to increase that fee to $4,000 per month. The Exchange presently charges Floor Specialists and Market Makers a monthly Permit Fee of $4,500 and it now proposes to increase that Fee to $6,000 per month. The Exchange proposes to increase the amounts of these Permit Fees to recoup its financial investment in building a new Trading Floor for the Exchange as well as the costs associated with developing and deploying new and more advanced technologies for use on the new Trading Floor by Floor Brokers, Floor Specialists, and Market Makers.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to decrease the amounts of its mid-tier rebates to Market Makers and Specialists that add liquidity in SPY because the Exchange seeks to provide a greater incentive to Market Makers and Specialists to increase their ADVs of contracts in SPY so as to qualify for the top rebate tier, which will be new Tier 6. The Exchange believes that this proposal is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the same decrease in rebates will apply to all similarly situated Market Makers and Specialists. Further, Market Makers and Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to impose a $0.05 per contract surcharge on Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker or Specialist Quotes that rest on the Simple Order Book. Specifically, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable for it to impose this surcharge as a means to reduce the Exchange's costs associated with these transactions because each such transaction costs the Exchange between $0.15 and $0.35 per contract in rebates to Market Makers and Specialists. Moreover, it is reasonable to impose this surcharge on Customers because Customers benefit the most from being able to achieve immediate executions of their Complex Orders in the relevant scenario. The Exchange believes that the surcharge is minimal and will not be substantial enough to eliminate or even significantly diminish the benefits to Customers of being able to achieve immediate executions in this manner. Finally, the Exchange notes that all other account categories—Professionals, Firms, Broker-Dealers, Specialists, and Market Makers—pay higher fees (between $0.43 and $0.50 per contract) for removing liquidity from the Complex Order Book than Customers would pay under the proposal when they execute their Complex Orders against Simple Orders of Market Makers and Specialists that are resting on the Simple Order Book.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly apply the fee to all similarly situated Customers. Moreover, Customers may avoid this new surcharge by executing their Complex Orders in the Exchange's Complex Order Book or by sending them to other trading venues where the transaction costs to them will be less expensive. Even with this surcharge, Customers are assessed the least amount per contract for executions in SPY. As noted herein, Customers are not assessed fees for adding and removing liquidity for SPY Complex Orders. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers lower fees is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to reduce the amount of the credit it presently provides to certain member organizations that route away more than 5,000 Customer orders per day in a given month. Although the Exchange wishes to continue providing incentives to member organizations to utilize its routing service, it seeks to reduce the incentive for member organizations to route orders to away markets. Despite the reduction, the Exchange believes the credit remains competitive.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the same reduced credit will uniformly be assessed on all member organizations when routing orders.
Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to increase its monthly Permit Fees for Floor Brokers and Floor Specialists and Market Makers. The Exchange has made substantial investments in building a new state-of-the-art Trading Floor for the Exchange as well as developing and deploying new and more advanced technologies for use on the new Trading Floor to the benefit of Floor Brokers, Floor Specialists, and Market Makers. The increased Permit Fees are a reasonable way for the Exchange to recoup some of these investments. Moreover, it is reasonable for the Exchange to recoup these investments from those members and member organizations that utilize the new Trading Floor and associated technologies.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the same reduced credit will uniformly apply uniformly to all situated Floor Brokers, Specialists, and Market Makers that utilize the Trading Floor. Likewise, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to increase Permit Fees will unduly burden competition because Floor Brokers, Market Makers, and Specialists may choose to utilize the Exchange's electronic environment or become members of other exchanges' trading floors if they conclude that the Exchange's Permit Fees are prohibitively expensive.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed and the credits and rebates available do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange's proposal to decrease the amounts of its mid-tier rebates to Market Makers and Specialists that add liquidity in SPY does not impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers and Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to impose a $0.05 per contract surcharge on Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker or Specialist Quotes that rest on the Simple Order Book does not impose an undue burden on competition because Customers may avoid this new surcharge by executing their Complex Orders in the Exchange's Complex Order Book or by sending them to other trading venues where the transaction costs to them will be less expensive. Even with this surcharge, Customers are assessed the least amount per contract for executions in SPY. As noted herein, Customers are not assessed fees for adding and removing liquidity for SPY Complex Orders. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers lower fees is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce the amount of the credit it presently provides to certain member organizations that route away more than 5,000 Customer orders per day in a given month does not impose an undue burden on competition because the reduced credit will uniformly be assessed on all member organizations when routing orders.
The Exchange's proposal to increase its monthly Permit Fees for Floor Brokers and Floor Specialists and Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on competition because the permit fees will be uniformly assessed to all Floor Brokers, Specialists, and Market Makers that utilize the Trading Floor. Likewise, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to increase Permit Fees will unduly burden competition because Floor Brokers, Market Makers, and Specialists may choose to utilize the Exchange's electronic environment or become members of other exchanges' trading floors if they conclude that the Exchange's Permit Fees are prohibitively expensive.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to update Rule 21.1, Rule 21.10, and Rule 21.17 to make modifications to the Exchange's rules and functionality applicable to the Exchange's options platform (“EDGX Options”) in preparation for the technology migration of the Exchange's affiliated options exchanges onto the same technology as the Exchange.
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.
In 2016, the Exchange and its affiliates Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) received approval to affect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's then-current indirect parent company, Bats Global Markets, Inc., with Cboe Global Markets f/k/a CBOE Holdings, Inc. (“Cboe”), the direct parent of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”) and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“C2 Options”, and together with the Exchange, BZX, and Cboe Options the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”).
The Exchange is proposing to adopt periodic but relatively minor changes to functionality in order to reduce risk in connection with the technology migration described above; this proposal is related to two such proposed changes. First, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain risk functionality in Rule 21.17, which is based on functionality on Cboe Options, C2 Options and/or the Exchange's functionality applicable to complex orders. The Exchange notes that it also proposes to make a related change to Rule 21.1 to eliminate functionality that overlaps with the proposed risk functionality. Second, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 21.10 to allow it to provide additional information on transaction reports.
The Exchange currently provides certain controls to Users
Rule 21.17 currently permits the Exchange to share a User's risk settings with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of the User, which is a provision that the Exchange does not propose to modify. Rule 21.17 does not currently describe any applicable risk settings. As noted above, though certain risk settings offered for Users of EDGX Options are codified in Rule 21.16, other optional risk settings offered by the Exchange are more generally described in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.10 and have been described in other filings previously made by the Exchange.
As a general matter, the Exchange proposes to adopt various numeric values that would apply to the risk settings offered by the Exchange. Consistent with other rules of the Exchange,
The first risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Market Order NBBO Width Protection. As proposed, if a User submits a Market Order
The second risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Limit Order Fat Finger Check. As proposed, if a User submits a buy (sell) limit order to the System with a price that is more than a buffer amount established by the Exchange above (below) the NBO (NBB), or, in the case of an order received prior to 9:30 a.m., above (below) the midpoint of the NBBO at the close of the market on the previous trading day, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the limit order. The proposed Limit Order Fat Finger Check is based on and similar to certain Limit Order Price Parameters set forth in C2 Options Rule 6.17(b). In particular, similar to C2 Options Rule 6.17(b)(1) and (b)(2), the Exchange would reject or cancel limit orders that
The third risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Buy Order Put Check. As proposed, if a User enters a buy limit order for a put with a price that is higher than or equal to the strike price of the option, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the limit order. Similarly, if a User enters a buy Market Order for a put that would execute at (or the remaining portion would execute at) a price higher than or equal to the strike price of the option, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the Market Order (or remaining portion). The Exchange does not propose to apply this check to adjusted options. The proposed Buy Order Put Check is based on and substantively identical to the Put Strike Price Value Check set forth in C2 Options Rule 6.17(d)(1)(A). The Exchange notes that it does not currently have an analogous risk control in place, and thus, this protection is an additive control to protect against erroneous executions.
The fourth and final risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Drill-Through Price Protection. As proposed, the Drill-Through Price Protection feature is a price protection mechanism applicable to all orders under which a buy (sell) order will not be executed at a price that is higher (lower) than the NBO (NBB) at the time of order entry plus (minus) a buffer amount established by the Exchange (the “Drill-Through Price”). If a buy (sell) order would execute or post to the EDGX Options Book at a price higher (lower) than the Drill-Through Price, the System will instead post the order to the EDGX Options Book at the Drill-Through Price, unless the terms of the order instruct otherwise. Any order (or unexecuted portion thereof) will rest in the EDGX Options Book (based on the time at which it enters the book for priority purposes) for a time period in milliseconds that may not exceed three seconds with a price equal to the Drill-Through Price. If the order (or unexecuted portion thereof) does not execute during that time period, the System will cancel it. While similar to and based on C2 Options Rule 6.17(a)(2), the proposed Rule is more directly based on Interpretation and Policy .04, to Exchange Rule 21.20, which describes Drill-Through Price Protection applicable to complex orders on EDGX Options. The proposed Drill-Through Price Protection is identical to Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 21.20 with the exceptions of necessary differences between language related to simple orders and complex orders and that in contrast to a User being able to modify the protection to a more or less restrictive control, which is available for the control on the Exchange for complex orders, the Exchange proposes to apply standard Drill-Through Price Protection to all orders and such protection cannot be modified.
In connection with the changes described above, the Exchange proposes to remove a portion of the definition of a [sic] Market Orders to remove a risk protection currently in place that overlaps with various risk controls described above. Market Orders are currently defined in in Rule 21.1(d)(5) as “orders to buy or sell at the best price available at the time of execution.” Rule 21.1(d)(5) further states that “[a]ny portion of a Market Order that would execute at a price more than $0.50 or 5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time the order initially reaches EDGX Options, whichever is greater, will be cancelled.” The Exchange proposes to remove this price protection for Market Orders because it is no longer necessary in light of the proposed risk controls described above (other than the Limit Order Fat Finger Check, which is inapplicable to Market Orders). In particular, the Drill-Through Price Protection provides a control with respect to the execution prices of Market Orders and would be duplicative of the existing control.
The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 21.10, Anonymity, to allow it to provide additional information on transaction reports. Current Rule 21.10(a) states that “[t]he intra-day transaction reports produced by the System will indicate the details of the transactions, and shall not reveal contra party identities.” The Exchange notes that this provision is consistent with Rule 11.13(d) of its cash equities trading platform (“EDGX Equities”) but is not a common provision in the rules of other options exchanges, including Cboe Options or C2 Options, which do not have such a provision. The Exchange currently provides details regarding contra-parties on various end of day and end of month reports for clearing purposes, and this information is similarly readily available through the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for clearing purposes.
The Exchange proposes to remove the restriction on providing contra party identities and to specifically state that aggregated and individual transaction reports produced by the System will indicate the details of a User's transactions, including the contra party's MPID, capacity, and clearing firm account number.
Current paragraph (c) of Rule 21.10 contains four exceptions to the general rule of anonymity, providing that the “Exchange shall reveal a User's identity in the following circumstances: (1) For regulatory purposes or to comply with an order of an arbitrator or court; (2) if both Users to the transaction consent; (3) if a User is acting as either a Market Maker or sending Orders on behalf of a Priority Customer; or (4) unless otherwise instructed by a User, the Exchange will reveal to a User, no later than the end of the day on the date an anonymous trade was executed, when the User's Order has been decremented by another Order submitted by that same User.” The Exchange proposes to
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed amendment will reduce complexity and increase the understanding of the Exchange's operations for all Users of the Exchange. In particular, by adopting certain mandatory risk controls, the Exchange's functionality will be more similar to that of Cboe Options and C2 Options. In turn, when Cboe Options and C2 Options are migrated to the same technology as that of the Exchange, Users of the Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges will have access to similar functionality on all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. As such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed price protection mechanisms and risk controls will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering orders and quotes at unintended prices, and risks associated with orders and quotes trading at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. While the Exchange has previously offered many risk controls under Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.10 and other filings previously made by the Exchange,
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule 21.10 that will permit the Exchange to provide additional detail in transaction reports is consistent with the rules of other options exchanges that do not contain explicit restrictions on providing such information. The proposed changes are similarly consistent with a variety of current Exchange and options industry practices, including the fact that clearing information available through OCC already provides contra-party information, as well as the ability of a User on the Exchange to disclose their identity when quoting.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposal will further promote consistency between the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges, and is part of a larger technology integration that will ultimately reduce complexity for Users of the Exchange that are also participants on other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will have any direct impact on competition. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares of the Western Asset Total Return ETF (the “Fund”), a series of Legg Mason ETF Investment Trust (the “Trust”) under Nasdaq Rule 5735 (“Managed Fund Shares”).
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 list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC will be the investment manager (“Manager”) to the Fund. Western Asset Management Company will serve as the sub-adviser to the Fund (the “Sub-Adviser”)
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 provides that if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
Rule 5735(g) is similar to Nasdaq Rule 5705(b)(5)(A)(i); however, paragraph (g) in connection with the establishment and maintenance of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable investment company's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds. None of the Manager or any of the Sub-Advisers is a broker-dealer, but each is affiliated with the Distributor, a broker-dealer, and has implemented and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning proposed changes to the composition and/or changes to the portfolio prior to implementation.
In addition, personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio. In the event (a) the Manager or any of the Sub-Advisers registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new manager or sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with another broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning proposed changes to the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio prior to implementation and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
The investment objective of the Fund will be to seek to maximize total return, consistent with prudent investment management and liquidity needs. Although the Fund may invest in securities and Debt (as defined below) of any maturity, the Fund will normally maintain an average effective duration within 35% of the average duration of the U.S. bond market as a whole (generally, this bond market range is 2.5 to 7 years) as estimated by the Sub-Adviser.
Under Normal Market Conditions,
The Manager or Sub-Advisers (as applicable) may select from any of the following types of fixed income securities: (i) U.S. or foreign corporate debt securities, including notes, bonds, debentures, trust preferred securities, and commercial paper issued by corporations, trusts, limited partnerships, limited liability companies and other types of non-governmental legal entities; (ii) U.S. government securities, including obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government, its agencies or government-sponsored entities; (iii) sovereign debt securities, which include fixed income securities issued by governments, agencies or instrumentalities and their political subdivisions, securities issued by government-owned, controlled or sponsored entities, interests in entities organized and operated for the purpose of restructuring the investment instruments issued by such entities, Brady Bonds,
Investments by the Fund in debt instruments (“Debt”) that may be deemed not to be “securities”, as defined in the Act, are comprised primarily of the following: (i) U.S. or foreign bank loans and participations in bank loans; (ii) U.S. or foreign loans by non-bank lenders and participations in such loans; (iii) U.S. or foreign loans on real estate secured by mortgages and participations (without guarantees by a government-sponsored entity (“GSE”)); and (iv) participations in U.S. or foreign loans and/or other extensions of credit, such as guarantees, made by governmental entities or financial institutions. Debt may be partially or fully secured by collateral supporting the payment of interest and principal, or unsecured and/or subordinated to other instruments. Debt may relate to financings for highly-leveraged borrowers. The Fund may acquire an interest in Debt by purchasing participations in and/or assignments of portions of loans from third parties or by investing in pools of loans, such as collateralized debt obligations.
With respect to fixed income securities and Debt, the Fund may invest in restricted instruments, such as Rule 144A and Regulation S securities, which are subject to resale restrictions that limit purchasers to qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) or non-U.S. persons, within the meaning of Regulation S under the Securities Act.
The Fund will use derivatives to (i) provide exposure to U.S. or foreign fixed income securities, Debt and other Principal Investments, (ii) risk manage the Fund's holdings,
The Fund may, without limitation, enter into repurchase arrangements and borrowing and reverse repurchase arrangements, purchase and sale contracts, buybacks and dollar rolls
Under Normal Market Conditions, the Fund will seek its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets in a portfolio of the Principal Investments. The Fund may invest its remaining assets exclusively in: (i) U.S. or foreign exchange-listed or over-the counter convertible fixed income securities; and (ii) OTC Derivatives (as defined below) and Exchange-Traded Derivatives (as defined below) that do not satisfy the Fund's primary uses for derivatives, which are to (A) provide exposure to such U.S. or foreign fixed income securities, Debt and other Principal Investments, (B) risk manage the Fund's holdings, and (C) enhance returns.
The Fund proposes to invest in the types of derivatives described in the “Principal Investments” and “Other Investments” sections above. Exchange-Traded Derivatives will primarily be traded on exchanges that are ISG members or exchanges with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Fund may, however, invest up to 10% of the net assets of the Fund in Exchange-Traded Derivatives whose principal market is not a member of ISG or a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. For purposes of this 10% limit, the weight of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value or exposure of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives.
The Fund will limit the weight of its investments in OTC Derivatives to 10% of the net assets of the Fund, with the exception of Interest Rate Derivatives
The Fund may choose not to make use of derivatives.
Generally, derivatives are financial contracts whose value depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate or index, and may relate to stocks, bonds, interest rates, currencies or currency exchange rates, commodities, and related indexes. As described above, the Fund will use derivatives to (i) provide exposure to U.S. or foreign fixed income securities, Debt and other Principal Investments, (ii) risk manage the Fund's holdings,
Investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the 1940 Act and consistent with the Fund's investment objective and policies. To limit the potential risk (including leveraging risk) associated with such transactions, the Fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by the Manager and/or the Sub-Advisers in accordance with procedures established by the Trust's Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under derivative instruments. These procedures have been adopted consistent with Section 18 of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance. In addition, the Fund will include appropriate risk disclosure in its offering documents, including leveraging risk. Leveraging risk is the risk that transactions of the Fund, including the Fund's use of derivatives, may give rise to additional leverage, causing the Fund to be more volatile than if it had not been leveraged. Because the markets for securities or Debt, or the securities themselves or Debt, may be unavailable, cost prohibitive or tax-inefficient as compared to derivative instruments, suitable derivative transactions may be an efficient alternative for the Fund to obtain the desired asset exposure.
The Manager and the Sub-Advisers believe that derivatives can be an economically attractive substitute for an underlying physical security or Debt that the Fund would otherwise purchase. For example, the Fund could purchase futures contracts on Treasury Securities instead of investing directly in Treasury Securities or could sell credit default protection on a corporate bond instead of buying a physical bond. Economic benefits include potentially lower transactions costs, attractive relative valuation of a derivative versus a physical bond (
The Manager and the Sub-Advisers further believe that derivatives can be used as a more liquid means of adjusting portfolio duration, as well as targeting specific areas of yield curve exposure, with potentially lower transaction costs than the underlying securities or Debt (
The Fund also can use derivatives to increase or decrease credit exposure. Index credit default swaps can be used to gain exposure to a basket of credit risk by “selling protection” against default or other credit events, or to hedge broad market credit risk by
The Fund expects to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk by entering into Currency Derivatives.
The Sub-Advisers may use option strategies to meet the Fund's investment objectives. Option purchases and sales can also be used to hedge specific exposures in the portfolio and can provide access to return streams available to long-term investors such as the persistent difference between implied and realized volatility. Option strategies can generate income or improve execution prices (
The Fund may invest up to 30% of its assets in Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, Equity-Related Warrants and Work Out Securities. The Fund will not invest in equity securities other than Principal Investment Equities. Principal Investment Equities consist of (i) Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, Equity-Related Warrants and Work Out Securities, which are subject to the 30% limit noted above and (ii) shares of ETFs that provide exposure to fixed income securities, Debt or other Principal Investments, which are subject to no limits.
While the Fund will invest principally in fixed income securities and Debt that are, at the time of purchase, investment grade, the Fund may invest up to 30% of its net assets in below investment grade fixed income securities and Debt. For these purposes, “investment grade” is defined as investments with a rating at the time of purchase in one of the four highest rating categories of at least one nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (“NRSRO”) (
The Fund may invest in fixed income or equity securities and Debt issued by both U.S. and non-U.S. issuers (including issuers in emerging markets), but the Fund will not invest more than 30% of its total assets directly in fixed income or equity securities or Debt of non-U.S. issuers or more than 25% of its total assets directly in non-U.S. dollar denominated fixed income or equity securities or Debt. For purposes of these 30% and 25% concentration limits only, derivatives, warrants and ETFs traded on U.S. exchanges that provide indirect exposure to fixed income or equity securities or Debt (as applicable) of non-U.S. issuers or to fixed income or equity securities or Debt (as applicable) denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars will not be counted by the Fund in calculating its holdings in non-U.S. issuers or in non-U.S. dollar denominated securities or Debt.
The Fund may invest a substantial portion of its net assets in ABS and MBS, but it will not invest more than 30% of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio
The Fund may not concentrate its investments (
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Manager or the Sub-Advisers.
As noted in the Use of Derivatives section above, the Fund's investments in derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used for the purpose of seeking leveraged returns or performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple of a benchmark (although derivatives have embedded leverage). Although the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, it will not be operated as a “leveraged ETF,” (
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will satisfy the following requirements, on a continuous basis measured at the time of purchase: (i) Component securities that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more; (ii) no fixed income security held in the portfolio (excluding U.S. Treasury Securities and GSE Securities)
In addition, the Fund will impose the limits described in the following section, which are alternative limits to the “generic” listing requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1).
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1). The Fund will meet all such requirements except the requirements described below,
(i) The Fund will not comply with the requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1) regarding the use of aggregate gross notional value or exposure of derivatives when calculating the weight of such derivatives or the exposure that such derivatives provide to underlying reference assets, including the requirements in Rules 5735(b)(1)(D)(i),
(ii) The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(v) that Private ABS/MBS in the Fund's portfolio account, in the aggregate, for no more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio. Instead, the Exchange proposes that the Fund will limit its holdings in Private ABS/MBS to no more than 30% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio, in order to enable the portfolio to be more diversified and provide the Fund with an opportunity to earn higher returns. For purposes of this requirement, the weight of the Fund's exposure to Private ABS/MBS referenced indirectly through investments in derivatives held by the Fund shall be calculated based on the mark-to-market value or exposure of such derivatives.
(iii) The Fund will not comply with the requirement that at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio meet one of the criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(iv).
(iv) The Fund will not comply with the equity requirements in Nasdaq Rules 5735(b)(1)(A)(i)
(v) The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(E) that no more than 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio may be invested in over-the-counter derivatives. Instead, the Exchange proposes that there shall be no limit on the Fund's investment in Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives, and the weight of all OTC Derivatives other than Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives shall not exceed 10% of the Fund's net assets. For purposes of this 10% limit on OTC Derivatives, the weight of such OTC Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value or exposure of such OTC Derivatives.
(vi) The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(i) that at least 90% of the weight of the Fund's holdings in futures, exchange-traded options, and listed swaps shall, on both an initial and continuing basis, consist of futures, options and swaps for which the Exchange may obtain information via the ISG from other members or affiliates of the ISG, or for which the principal market is a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Instead, the Exchange proposes that no more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund will be invested in Exchange-Traded Derivatives whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. For purposes of this 10% limit, the weight of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives will be calculated based on the mark-to-market value or exposure of such Exchange-Traded Derivatives.
(vii) The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii) that the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any five or fewer underlying reference assets shall not exceed 65% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures), and the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any single underlying reference asset shall not exceed 30% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures). Instead, the Exchange proposes that the Fund will comply with the concentration requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii) except with respect to the Fund's investment in futures and options (including options on futures) referencing Eurodollars and sovereign debt issued by the United States (
The Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet a limited number of “generic” listing requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1) in order to be able to satisfy its investment objective, the Exchange will be able to appropriately monitor and surveil trading in the underlying investments, including those that do not meet the “generic” listing requirements. The Exchange also notes that the parameters around the Fund's portfolio holdings are generally consistent with the parameters approved by the Commission prior to adoption of “generic” listing requirements for actively-managed ETFs.
As further described in the “Statutory Basis” section below, deviations from the generic requirements are necessary for the Fund to achieve its investment objective and efficiently manage the risks associated with its investments, and any possible risks have been fully mitigated and addressed through the alternative limits proposed by the Exchange. In addition, many of the changes requested are generally consistent with previous filings approved by the Commission.
The Fund's administrator will calculate the Fund's net asset value (“NAV”) per Share as of the close of regular trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time (“E.T.”)) on each day the New York Stock Exchange is open for business. NAV per Share will be calculated for the Fund by taking the value of the Fund's total assets, including interest or dividends accrued but not yet collected, less all liabilities, and dividing such amount by the total number of Shares outstanding. The result, rounded to the nearest cent, will be the NAV per Share (although creations and redemptions will be processed using a price denominated to the fifth decimal point, meaning that rounding to the nearest cent may result in different prices in certain circumstances).
The Manager and the Sub-Advisers believe there will be minimal, if any, impact on the arbitrage mechanism for the Fund as a result of its use of derivatives. The Manager and the Sub-Advisers understand that market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Manager and the Sub-Advisers believe that the price at which Shares trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to purchase or redeem creation Shares at their NAV, which should ensure that Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
The Manager and the Sub-Advisers do not believe that there will be any significant impact on the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives. Because derivatives generally are not eligible for in-kind transfer, they will typically be substituted with a “cash in lieu” amount when the Fund processes purchases or redemptions of creation units in-kind.
The Fund will issue Shares of the Fund at NAV only with authorized participants (“APs”) and only in aggregations of at least 50,000 shares (each aggregation is called a “Creation Unit”) or multiples thereof, on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any Business Day, of an order in proper form. A “Business Day” is defined as any day that the Trust is open for business, including as required by Section 22(e) of the Act.
The consideration for purchase of Creation Units of the Fund consists of an “in-kind” deposit of a designated portfolio of securities and/or instruments that will conform pro rata to the holdings of the Fund (except in the circumstances described in the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”)) (the “Deposit Securities”) and/or an amount of cash. If there is a difference between the NAV attributable to a Creation Unit and the aggregate market value of the Deposit Securities or Redemption Securities (defined below) exchanged for the Creation Unit, the party conveying the instruments with the lower value will pay to the other an amount in cash equal to that difference (the “Cash Component”). Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component will constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which will represent the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund. The Deposit Securities and the securities and/or instruments that will be delivered in an in-kind transfer in a redemption (“Redemption Securities”) will be identical. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in-kind, only under the circumstances described in the Fund's SAI.
To be eligible to place orders with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units, an entity must have executed an agreement with the Distributor, subject to acceptance by the transfer agent, with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. Each such entity (an AP) must be (i) a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the continuous net settlement system of the National Securities Clearing Corporation
When the Fund permits Creation Units to be issued principally or partially in-kind, the Fund will cause to be published, through the NSCC, on each Business Day, prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange (currently, 9:30 a.m. E.T.), the identity and the required number of each Deposit Security and the amount of the Cash Component (if any) to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day).
All orders to create Creation Units must be received by the Distributor within a one-hour window after the closing time of the regular trading session on the Exchange (“Closing Time”) (ordinarily between 4:00 p.m. E.T. and 5:00 p.m. E.T.) on the date such order is placed in order to receive the NAV on the next Business Day immediately following the date the order was placed.
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form on a Business Day and only through an AP. The Fund will not redeem Shares in amounts less than a Creation Unit (except the Fund may redeem shares in amounts less than a Creation Unit in the event the Fund is being liquidated).
When the Fund permits Creation Units to be redeemed principally or partially in-kind, the Fund will cause to be published, through the NSCC, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently, 9:30 a.m., E.T.) on each Business Day, the identity of the Redemption Securities and/or an amount of cash that will be applicable to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. The Redemption Securities will be identical to the Deposit Securities.
In order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund, an AP must submit an order to redeem for one or more Creation Units. All such orders must be received by the Distributor within a one-hour window after the Closing Time (ordinarily between 4:00 p.m. E.T. and 5:00 p.m. E.T.) in order to receive the NAV on the next Business Day immediately following the date the order was placed.
The Fund's website (
On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5735(c)(3) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's Disclosed Portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the Nasdaq Information LLC proprietary index data service,
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) plans for the Shares and for the following U.S. securities, to the extent that they are exchange-listed securities: Work Out Securities, Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, Equity-Related Warrants, convertible fixed income securities and ETFs. Price information for U.S. exchange-listed options will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority and for other U.S. exchange-listed derivative instruments
For exchange-listed securities (including foreign exchange-listed securities), equities traded in the over-the-counter market (including Work Out Securities, Non-Convertible Preferred Securities and ETFs), Exchange-Traded Derivatives, OTC Derivatives, Debt and fixed income securities (including convertible fixed income securities), warrants on fixed income securities and Equity-Related Warrants, intraday price quotations will generally be available from broker-dealers and trading platforms (as applicable). Price information will also be available from feeds from market data vendors, published or other public sources, or online information services for exchange-listed securities (including foreign exchange-listed securities), equities traded in the over-the-counter market (including Work Out Securities, Non-Convertible Preferred Securities and ETFs), Exchange-Traded Derivatives, Debt and fixed income securities, warrants on fixed income securities and Equity-Related Warrants. Additionally, the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) will be a source of price information for corporate bonds, privately-issued securities, MBS and ABS, to the extent transactions in such securities are reported to TRACE.
Additional information regarding the Fund and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings' disclosure policies, distributions and taxes will be included in the Registration Statement. Investors will also be able to obtain the SAI, the Fund's annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and its Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year, except the SAI, which is filed at least annually. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
The Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the other assets constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., E.T. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(3), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Managed Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-listed securities and instruments held by the Fund (including ETFs, exchange-listed equities, exchange-listed options, futures contracts and exchange-listed swaps) with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG and with which the Exchange has comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements,
All of the Fund's net assets that are invested in equity securities other than Work Out Securities that are exchange-listed (which consist of Non-Convertible-Preferred Securities and Equity-Related Warrants that are exchange-listed, and ETFs) will be invested in securities that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Fund's website.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or intraday indicative values, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both the Exchange and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws and are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions. The Manager and the Sub-Advisers are affiliated with a broker-dealer and have implemented, and will maintain, a fire wall with respect to its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning proposed changes to the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio prior to implementation. In addition, paragraph (g) of Nasdaq Rule 5735 further requires that personnel who make decisions on an investment company's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the investment company's portfolio.
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objectives, applicable legal requirements
The Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet all of the “generic” listing
The Fund will not comply with the requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1) regarding the use of aggregate gross notional value or exposure of derivatives when calculating the weight of such derivatives or the exposure that such derivatives provide to underlying reference assets, including the requirements in Rules 5735(b)(1)(D)(i), 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii), 5735(b)(1)(E) and 5735(b)(1)(F). Instead, the Exchange proposes that for the purposes of any applicable requirements under Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1), and any alternative requirements proposed by the Exchange, the Fund will use the mark-to-market value or exposure of its derivatives in calculating the weight of such derivatives or the exposure that such derivatives provide to their reference assets. The Exchange believes that this alternative requirement is appropriate because the mark-to-market value or exposure is a more accurate measurement of the actual exposure incurred by the Fund in connection with a derivatives position.
The Fund will not meet the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(v) that Private ABS/MBS in the Fund's portfolio account, in the aggregate, for no more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio. However, the Fund will limit the holdings in Private ABS/MBS to 30% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio.
Private ABS/MBS include a number of different types of securitized debt products, including credit card debt, student loans, auto debt and residential and commercial mortgage debt. Investment in a variety of sectors, rather than simply residential mortgages comprising Government ABS/MBS, reduces concentration and diversifies sources of risk. Private ABS/MBS held by the Fund will be generally liquid instruments.
The Fund carries out its own credit analysis of Private ABS/MBS issuers
The Fund will not meet the requirement that at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio meet one of the criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B)(iv)
The Fund will not meet the equity requirements in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(A) with respect to Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, Work Out Securities and Equity-Related Warrants, but will satisfy these requirements with respect to the ETFs in which the Fund will invest.
The Fund will not meet the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(E) that no more than 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio may be invested in over-the-counter derivatives. The Fund proposes that no limit be placed on Interest Rate and Currency Derivatives, which are necessary and appropriate to allow the Manager and Sub-Advisers to risk manage the Fund, but that the weight of all other OTC Derivatives (
The Fund will not comply with the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(i) that at least 90% of the weight of the Fund's holdings in futures, exchange-traded options, and listed swaps shall, on both an initial and continuing basis, consist of futures, options, and swaps for which the Exchange may obtain information via the ISG from other members or affiliates of the ISG, or for which the principal market is a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Instead, the Exchange proposes that no more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund will be invested in Exchange-Traded Derivatives whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Fund will not meet the requirement in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D)(ii) that the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any five or fewer underlying reference assets shall not exceed 65% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures), and the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any single underlying reference asset shall not exceed 30% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio (including gross notional exposures) because the Fund may maintain significant positions in Eurodollar and G-7 Sovereign Futures and Options. The Manager has indicated that obtaining exposure to these investments through futures contracts is often the most cost efficient method to achieve such exposure. The Exchange notes that Eurodollar and G-7 Sovereign Futures and Options are highly liquid investments
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily every day that the Fund is traded, and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency.
Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the Nasdaq Information LLC proprietary index data service, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Market Session. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in the Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its website the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be conditionally available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the CTA plans for the Shares and for the following U.S. securities, to the extent they are exchange-listed: Work Out Securities, Non-Convertible Preferred Securities, Equity-Related Warrants, convertible fixed income securities and ETFs. Price information for U.S. exchange-listed options will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority and for other U.S. exchange-listed derivative instruments will be available from the applicable listing exchange and from major market data vendors. Price information for restricted securities, including Regulation S and Rule 144A instruments, will be available from major market data vendors, broker-dealers and trading platforms. Money Market Funds are typically priced once each Business Day and their prices will be available through the applicable fund's website or from major market data vendors.
For exchange-listed securities (including foreign exchange-listed securities), equities traded in the over-the-counter market (including Work Out Securities, Non-Convertible Preferred Securities and ETFs), Exchange-Traded Derivatives, OTC Derivatives, Debt and fixed income securities (including convertible fixed income securities), warrants on fixed income securities and Equity-Related Warrants, intraday price quotations will generally be available from broker-dealers and trading platforms (as applicable). Price information will also be available from feeds from market data vendors, published or other public sources, or online information services for exchange-listed securities (including foreign exchange-listed securities), equities traded in the over-the-counter market (including Work Out Securities, Non-Convertible Preferred Securities and ETFs), Exchange-Traded Derivatives, Debt and fixed income securities, warrants on fixed income securities and Equity-Related Warrants. Additionally, TRACE will be a source of price information for corporate bonds, privately-issued securities, MBS and ABS, to the extent transactions in such securities are reported to TRACE.
The Fund's website will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in the Shares of the Fund will be halted under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121 or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed ETF that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed ETF that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDC”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds.
Guggenheim Credit Income Fund (the “Fund”) (f/k/a Carey Credit Income Fund); Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC (“Guggenheim”); Guggenheim Funds Distributors, LLC, Guggenheim Funds Investment Advisors, LLC, Security Investors, LLC (collectively, together with Guggenheim, the “Existing Guggenheim Advisers”); Guggenheim European Credit Fund, Guggenheim Private Debt Fund Note Issuer, LLC, Guggenheim Private Debt Fund, LLC, Guggenheim Private Debt Fund, Ltd., Guggenheim Private Debt Master Fund, LLC, Guggenheim Private Debt Fund Note Issuer 2.0, LLC, Guggenheim Private Debt Fund 2.0, LLC, Guggenheim Private Debt Fund 2.0, Ltd., Guggenheim Private Debt Master Fund 2.0, LLC, Guggenheim Private Debt MFLTB 2.0, LLC, NZC Guggenheim Fund LLC, NZC Guggenheim Fund Limited, NZC Guggenheim Master Fund Limited, NZCG Funding Ltd., NZCG Funding 2 Limited, South Dock Funding Limited, NZCG Feeder I, L.P., NZCG Funding 2, LLC, NZCG Funding LLC, Guggenheim U.S. Loan Fund, Guggenheim U.S. Loan Fund II, Guggenheim U.S. Loan Fund III, Guggenheim Opportunistic U.S. Loan and Bond Fund IV, GFI Fund, and GHY Fund (collectively, the “Existing Affiliated Investors”).
The application was filed on September 22, 2017, and amended on November 22, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January 29, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Guggenheim and the Fund: 330 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017; the Existing Guggenheim Advisers and the Existing Affiliated Investors: 100 Wilshire Boulevard, 5th Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90401.
Hae-Sung Lee, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-7345 or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund is a Delaware statutory trust organized as a closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under the Act.
2. Guggenheim is a Delaware limited liability company and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Guggenheim serves as the investment adviser to the Fund. Guggenheim also provides administrative services to the Fund under an administrative services agreement. Guggenheim is part of the investment management business of Guggenheim Partners LLC, a privately held, global financial services firm.
3. Each Existing Affiliated Investor is a privately-offered fund that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act. An Existing Guggenheim Adviser serves as the investment adviser to each Existing Affiliated Investor. Each Existing Guggenheim Adviser is either controlled by Guggenheim or under common control with Guggenheim and is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.
4. Applicants seek to supersede the Prior Order
5. Applicants state that a Regulated Entity may, from time to time, form a Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiary.
6. It is anticipated that a Guggenheim Adviser will periodically determine that certain investments the Guggenheim Adviser recommends for a Regulated Entity would also be appropriate investments for one or more other Regulated Entities and/or one or more Affiliated Investors. Such a determination may result in the Regulated Entity, one or more other Regulated Entities and/or one or more Affiliated Investors co-investing in certain investment opportunities. For each such investment opportunity, the Guggenheim Adviser to each Regulated Entity will independently analyze and
7. Applicants state that Guggenheim serves as the Fund's investment adviser and administrator and either it or another Guggenheim Adviser will serve in the same capacity to any Future Regulated Entity. Applicants represent that a Guggenheim Adviser will identify and recommend investments for each Regulated Entity and will have the authority to approve or reject all investments proposed for the Regulated Entity.
8. Applicants state that each Guggenheim Adviser has (or will have, in the case of future advisers) an investment committee through which it will carry out its obligation under condition 1 to make a determination as to the appropriateness of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for each Regulated Entity. Applicants represent that each Guggenheim Adviser, as a registered investment adviser, has (or will have, in the case of future advisers) developed a robust allocation process that is designed to allocate investment opportunities fairly and equitably among its clients over time. Applicants state that, in the case of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Guggenheim Adviser would apply its allocation policies and procedures in determining the proposed allocation for the Regulated Entity consistent with the requirements of condition 2(a).
9. Applicants state that, once the applicable Guggenheim Adviser's investment committee approves a transaction, the Guggenheim Adviser would present the Potential Co-Investment Transaction and proposed allocation to the Regulated Entity's Board for its approval in accordance with the conditions to the application.
10. If the applicable Guggenheim Adviser to a Regulated Entity determines that a Potential Co-Investment Transaction is appropriate for the Regulated Entity, and one or more other Regulated Entities and/or one or more Affiliated Investors may also participate, the Guggenheim Adviser will present the investment opportunity to the Eligible Trustees
11. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and follow-on Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Entity may participate in a pro rata disposition or follow-on investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Entity and Affiliated Investor in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or follow-on investment, as the case may be; and (ii) each Regulated Entity's Board has approved that Regulated Entity's participation in pro rata dispositions and follow-on investments as being in the best interests of the Regulated Entity. If the Board does not so approve, any such disposition or follow-on investment will be submitted to the Regulated Entity's Eligible Trustees. The Board of any Regulated Entity may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata dispositions and follow-on investments with the result that all dispositions and/or follow-on investments must be submitted to the Eligible Trustees.
12. No Independent Trustee of a Regulated Entity will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction.
13. Under condition 15, if a Guggenheim Adviser or its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Guggenheim Adviser or its principals, and any Affiliated Investors (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of a Regulated Entity (“Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the condition. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Independent Trustees will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Guggenheim Adviser or its principals to influence the Independent Trustees by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Trustees can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Independent Trustees shall evaluate and approve any such independent third party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit participation by a registered investment company and an affiliated person in any “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” as defined in the rule, without prior approval by the Commission by order upon application. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Entities that are registered closed-end investment companies. Similarly, with regard to BDCs, section 57(a)(4) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person who is related to a BDC in a manner described in section 57(b), acting as principal, knowingly to effect any transaction in which the BDC (or a company controlled by such BDC) is a joint or a joint and several participant with that person in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Because the Commission has not adopted any rules expressly under section 57(a)(4), section 57(i) provides that the rules under section 17(d) applicable to registered closed-end investment companies (
2. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from
3. Applicants submit that each Regulated Entity may be deemed to be an “affiliated person” of each other Regulated Entity within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Entities, by virtue of each having a Guggenheim Adviser, may be deemed to be under common control, and thus affiliated persons of each other under section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act. Section 17(d) and section 57(b) apply to any investment adviser to a closed-end fund or a BDC, respectively. Thus, a Guggenheim Adviser and any Affiliated Investors that it advises could be deemed to be persons related to Regulated Entities in a manner described by sections 17(d) and 57(b) and therefore prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1 from participating in the Co-Investment Program. Applicants further submit that, because the Guggenheim Advisers are “affiliated persons” of other Guggenheim Advisers, Affiliated Investors advised by any of them could be deemed to be persons related to Regulated Entities (or a company controlled by a Regulated Entity) in a manner described by sections 17(d) and 57(b) and also prohibited from participating in the Co-Investment Program.
4. Applicants state that they expect that that co-investment in portfolio companies by a Regulated Entity, one or more other Regulated Entities and/or one or more Affiliated Investors will increase favorable investment opportunities for each Regulated Entity.
5. Applicants submit that the fact that the Required Majority will approve each Co-Investment Transaction before investment (except for certain dispositions or follow-on investments, as described in the conditions), and other protective conditions set forth in the application, will ensure that each Regulated Entity will be treated fairly. Applicants state that each Regulated Entity's participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants. Applicants further state that the terms and conditions proposed herein will ensure that all such transactions are reasonable and fair to each Regulated Entity and the Affiliated Investors and do not involve overreaching by any person concerned, including Guggenheim.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time a Guggenheim Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for an Affiliated Investor or another Regulated Entity that falls within a Regulated Entity's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the Guggenheim Adviser to the Regulated Entity will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Entity in light of the Regulated Entity's then-current circumstances.
2. a. If the Guggenheim Adviser to a Regulated Entity deems participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Entity, the Guggenheim Adviser will then determine an appropriate level of investment for such Regulated Entity.
b. If the aggregate amount recommended by the Guggenheim Adviser to a Regulated Entity to be invested by the Regulated Entity in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Entities and Affiliated Investors, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the amount of the investment opportunity will be allocated among the Regulated Entities and such Affiliated Investors, pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital
c. After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a) above, the Advisers to the Regulated Entity will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the amount proposed to be invested by each Regulated Entity and any Affiliated Investor, to the Eligible Trustees of each participating Regulated Entity for their consideration. A Regulated Entity will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Entities and/or an Affiliated Investor only if, prior to the Regulated Entities' and the Affiliated Investors' participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Entity and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Entity or its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(a) The interests of the Regulated Entity's shareholders; and
(b) the Regulated Entity's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Entity or an Affiliated Investor would not disadvantage the Regulated Entity, and participation by the Regulated Entity would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of any other Regulated Entity or Affiliated Investor; provided, that if another Regulated Entity or Affiliated Investor, but not the Regulated Entity itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to have a board observer, or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not be interpreted to prohibit a Required Majority from reaching the conclusions required by this condition 2(c)(iii), if:
(a) The Eligible Trustees will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any; and
(b) the Guggenheim Adviser to the Regulated Entity agree to, and do, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Entity's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(c) any fees or other compensation that any other Regulated Entity or any Affiliated Investor or any affiliated person of any other Regulated Entity or an Affiliated Investor receives in connection with the right of one or more Regulated Entities or Affiliated Investors
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Entity will not benefit the Guggenheim Adviser, any other Regulated Entity or the Affiliated Investors or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted under sections 17(e) and 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(c), or (D) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction.
3. Each Regulated Entity will have the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The Guggenheim Adviser will present to the Board of each Regulated Entity, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Entities or any of the Affiliated Investors during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Entity's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Entity, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Entity. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Entity and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for follow-on investments made in accordance with condition 8,
6. A Regulated Entity will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Entity and Affiliated Investor. The grant to one or more Regulated Entities or Affiliated Investors, but not the Regulated Entity itself, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(a), (b) and (c) are met.
7. a. If any Regulated Entity or Affiliated Investor elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired by one or more Regulated Entities and/or Affiliated Investors in a Co-Investment Transaction, the Guggenheim Adviser will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Entity that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Entity in the disposition.
b. Each Regulated Entity will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the Affiliated Investors and any other Regulated Entity.
c. A Regulated Entity may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Entity and each Affiliated Investor in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Regulated Entity's Board has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Entity the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Regulated Entity's Board is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the Guggenheim Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Entity's participation to the Eligible Trustees, and the Regulated Entity will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Entity's best interests.
d. Each Regulated Entity and each Affiliated Investor will bear its own expenses in connection with the disposition.
8. a. If any Regulated Entity or Affiliated Investor desires to make a “follow-on investment” (
(i) Notify each Regulated Entity of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed follow-on investment, by each Regulated Entity.
b. A Regulated Entity may participate in such follow-on investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Entity and each Affiliated Investor in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the follow-on investment; and (ii) the Regulated Entity's Board has approved as being in the best interests of such Regulated Entity the ability to participate in follow-on investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application). In all other cases, the Guggenheim Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to such Regulated Entity's participation to the Eligible Trustees, and the Regulated Entity will participate in such follow-on investment solely to the extent that the Required Majority determines that it is in such Regulated Entity's best interests.
c. If, with respect to any follow-on investment:
(i) The amount of a follow-on investment is not based on the Regulated Entities' and the Affiliated Investors' outstanding investments immediately preceding the follow-on investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Guggenheim Adviser to be invested by the Regulated Entity in the follow-on investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Entities and the Affiliated Investors in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity; then the amount invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each.
d. The acquisition of follow-on investments as permitted by this
9. The Independent Trustees of each Regulated Entity will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Entities or Affiliated Investors that a Regulated Entity considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Trustees may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments which the Regulated Entity considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Independent Trustees will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for such Regulated Entity of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Entity will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Entities were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by a Required Majority under section 57(f).
11. No Independent Trustee of a Regulated Entity will also be a trustee, director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act) of any Affiliated Investor.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) shall, to the extent not payable by the Guggenheim Advisers under their respective advisory agreements with the Regulated Entities and the Affiliated Investors, be shared by the Regulated Entities and the Affiliated Investors in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or to be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee (including break-up or commitment fees but excluding brokers' fees contemplated by section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable)
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the shares of a Regulated Entity, then the Holders will vote such shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of directors or trustees; (2) the removal of one or more directors or trustees; or (3) any matters requiring approval by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities, as defined in section 2(a)(42) of the Act.
15. Each Regulated Entity's chief compliance officer, as defined in Rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Entity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Amendment proposes to modify the text of the fee schedule of the Plan to adopt a “Multiple Instance, Single User” (“MISU”) Program that aligns with the MISU Program used by the CTA and CQ Plans. As explained in greater detail below, the Participants state that the Amendment moves towards harmonizing the fees under the Plan with the fees under the CTA and
According to the Participants, because the adoption of the MISU Program will result in more netting of devices than currently exists under the Net Reporting Program, the Plan expects that the number of devices being reported will decrease. Therefore, to make the adoption of the MISU Program revenue neutral, the Participants are proposing an increase in the professional subscriber device fee from $22 to $24, regardless of whether or not a professional subscriber opts for the MISU program. A description of the Plan's expectations with regards to the decrease in the number of reported devices, and calculations regarding the revenue neutral aspect of the proposed amendment is described in greater detail below.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the Amendment. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
In April 2013, the Plan adopted the Net Reporting Program for professional subscriber device fees.
The rationale for not including vendor-controlled terminals in the Net Reporting Program was because of the Plan's indirect billing model and the associated administrative burden of including the vendor-controlled terminals in the Net Reporting Program under the indirect billing model. Under the CTA and CQ Plans, Network A and Network B administrators bill end users directly, and as a result, did not face similar administrative burdens for including vendor-controlled terminals. Therefore, the CTA and CQ Plans follow a MISU Program, which allows vendor-controlled terminals to be netted with internally-controlled devices.
The CTA's and CQ's MISU Programs allow subscriber firms to reduce the number of professional subscriber devices being reported for that particular subscriber. As the name suggests, it allows the subscriber firm to be charged a single fee when an employee is accessing market data on multiple devices. A subscriber firm not opting for the MISU Program is required to pay a device fee for each device accessed by an employee. To be included in the CTA's and CQ's MISU Programs, the subscriber firm is required to comply with a number of requirements designed to ensure that the Network A and Network B market data administrator is able to properly account for the multiple devices being used by a single user.
The Plan is proposing to adopt a MISU Program that allows subscriber firms to report usage in a manner consistent with the CTA and CQ Plans.
As an example, consider a subscriber firm that has an employee who accesses market data on two separate internally-controlled devices, as well as two vendor-controlled terminals. Under the Net Reporting Program, that subscriber firm would report three devices for the employee: The two separate internally-controlled devices would be netted to be counted as one device, and the two vendor-controlled terminals would be separately counted. However, under the proposed MISU Program, the subscriber firm would report a single device for the employee because both vendor-controlled terminals could be netted with the internally-controlled devices.
To take advantage of the MISU Program, subscriber firms must comply with certain requirements that will be set forth in an updated Data Policy document.
The purpose of this amendment is to harmonize the CQ/CTA Plans and the Plan and reduce administrative burdens for subscriber firms—the purpose of the amendment is not intended to increase or decrease Plan revenue. As a result of
Not applicable.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the Participants have designated the proposed amendment as establishing or changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate effectiveness. However, to effectuate the MISU Program, certain reporting systems will need to be developed to accommodate the reports that subscriber firms are required to file under the MISU Program. Therefore, the MISU Program and associated fee increase will be implemented after development of necessary systems. The Plan will announce the planned implementation date, and expects to be able to proceed with the MISU Program during the first quarter of 2018.
The proposed amendments do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The proposed adoption of the MISU Program will reduce the administrative burden placed on subscriber firms by harmonizing the approach to netting available under the CQ/CTA Plans and the Plan. The Plan has consulted with subscriber firms who have expressed overwhelming support for the harmonization detailed herein. As a result, the proposed adoption of the MISU Program would promote consistency in market data administration among the national market system plans and make market data fees easier to administer for subscriber firms.
Additionally, while the adoption of the MISU Program will include a fee increase, such fee increase is necessary to ensure that the adoption of the MISU Program remains revenue neutral. As described below, the Plan has based the fee increase on experience with netting under the CQ/CTA Plans as well as natural price attrition.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Participants proposed to increase the professional subscriber device fee from $22 to $24 after performing an analysis to adopt a revenue-neutral MISU Program. The adoption of the MISU Program is designed to reduce administrative burdens on subscriber firms by harmonizing the various market data plans. The fee changes are designed to ensure that the MISU Program has a negligible effect on Plan revenue.
In determining the necessary fee increase to achieve revenue neutrality, the Participants reviewed two aspects of the adoption of the MISU Program that would result in decreased revenue: (1) An increase in the netting of devices and (2) natural price attrition.
First, as previously explained, the MISU Program will allow subscriber firms to net internally controlled devices with vendor-controlled terminals. For example, consider a subscriber firm who has an employee who accesses market data on two separate internal devices, as well as two vendor-controlled terminals. Under the current Net Reporting Program, that subscriber firm would report three devices for the employee: The two separate internal devices would be netted to be counted as one device, and the two vendor-controlled terminals would be separately counted. However, under the proposed MISU Program, the subscriber firm would report a single device for the employee because the internally-controlled devices can be netted with both vendor-controlled terminals. Because of this additional netting, the number of devices, and therefore the amount of revenue collected, would decrease. Therefore, to remain revenue neutral, the fee would need to be increased by an amount that is proportional to the projected decrease in the number of professional subscriber devices being reported.
Experience under the CTA Plan has demonstrated that the current MISU Program already in place currently results in a loss of 3.5% of the total number of professional subscriber devices due to netting of multiple terminals.
Second, whenever there is a market data fee price increase, the Plan experiences natural price attrition whereby subscriber firms cancel their subscriptions simply because of the price increases. The Participants analyzed potential attrition based on the actual effect of past price increases for Tapes A and B. Specifically, the Participants looked at attrition rates of 3% and 5% as a result of the proposed professional subscriber device fee increase.
Using these two inputs based on experience (projected netting rates and attrition rates), the Participants determined that an increase of the professional subscriber device fee to $24 was likely to result in a revenue neutral adoption of the MISU Program. In particular, a natural price attrition rate of 3-5% and a netting increase of 5% would result in a decrease in revenue of 8-10%. Therefore, the Participants decided to propose the increase of the professional subscriber device fee from $22 to $24 (an increase of 9%) as a reasoned approach to ensuring that the adoption of the MISU Program by the Plan would remain revenue neutral.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks comment on the Amendment. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on, among other things: (1) Whether the effect on revenue would be neutral as represented by the Participants given that there will be an increase in the professional subscriber device fee; and (2) whether the process subscribers must follow and the requirements that subscribers must comply with to take advantage of the MISU Program, are transparent, objective, and subject to fair and non-discriminatory application. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
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 statement 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 this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 11.380 (Risk
On August 4, 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by the Exchange to adopt rules governing auctions in IEX-listed securities, including Opening and Closing Auction processes that establish IEX Official Opening and Closing Prices for each trading day.
Pursuant to Rule 11.350(c)(1), the Exchange allows Users to submit orders eligible for execution in the Opening Auction at the beginning of the Pre-Market Session,
Pursuant to Rule 11.350(c)(1)(B), beginning at the Opening Auction Lock-in Time
Similarly, pursuant to Rule 11.350(d)(1), the Exchange allows Users to submit orders eligible for execution in the Closing Auction at the beginning of the Pre-Market Session, which begins at 8:00 a.m. Any orders designated for the Closing Auction Book are queued until 4:00 p.m. (or such earlier time as the Regular Market Session
Pursuant to Rule 11.350(d)(1)(B), beginning at the Closing Auction Lock-in Time
IEX proposes to amend Rule 11.380 to clarify that the ARC mechanism will not cancel orders eligible for execution in the Opening or Closing Auction after the applicable Lock-in Time and before the match. Specifically, the Exchange propose to add paragraph (3) to Rule 11.380(a), to provide that, notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2) regarding ARC, after the Opening (Closing) Auction Lock-in Time and before the Opening (Closing) Auction match, if a Member exceeds its pre-determined ARC limit as configured by the Member or their clearing firm, IEX will not cancel such Member's orders if they are on the Opening (Closing) Auction Book (“Locked-in Orders”).
As described above, IEX rules explicitly provide that orders eligible for execution in the Opening or Closing Auction may not be modified or cancelled after the applicable Lock-in Time and before the auction match. In order to avoid any confusion as to how the ARC mechanism would operate in the event that a Member exceeds its pre-determined ARC limit (as configured by the Member or its clearing firm) after the Opening or Closing Lock-in Time and before the match, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend Rule 11.380(a) to clarify that the ARC mechanism will not cancel such orders.
The Exchange believes that the Opening and Closing Auctions will provide a critical price discovery mechanism that establishes IEX Official Opening and Closing Prices for IEX-listed securities, and allows market participants to move in and out of sizable positions during a single centralized liquidity event. The Exchange also notes that the official closing price of all securities is generally the data point most closely scrutinized by investors, securities analysts, and the financial media, and is used to value and assess management fees on mutual funds, hedge funds, and individual investor portfolios. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that Opening and Closing Auctions should not be disrupted by momentary price dislocations or the creation or exacerbation of large imbalances that can be caused by the cancelation of Locked-in Orders, and should instead reflect all available trading interest in a stable and transparent manner.
The Exchange also believes that ARC, as described above, provides a useful risk management tool for Members and clearing firms. However, the Exchange notes that use of ARC by a Member does not automatically constitute compliance with IEX rules or SEC rules, nor does it replace Member-managed risk management solutions. The Exchange does not require Members to use ARC, and Members may use any other appropriate risk-management tool or service instead of, or in combination with, ARC. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that Members should be aware of their auction order flow, and clearing firms should be aware of the auction order flow of their broker correspondents, in order to appropriately manage their risk limits to account for the fact that Locked-In Orders cannot be canceled after the Lock-in Time. Thus, the proposed rule change is designed to balance the utility of the optional ARC functionality that is voluntarily offered by the Exchange free of charge, and the interests of fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, and the public interest. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance between these two goals by continuing to allow Members and clearing firms to utilize ARC to assist with risk management, while protecting the Opening and Closing Auctions from undue price dislocation or the creation or exacerbation of large imbalances by preventing Locked-in Orders from being canceled after the Lock-in Time.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Sections 6(b)
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports these objectives in that it is designed to ensure fair and orderly execution of the Opening and Closing Auctions, as described in the Purpose section, by minimizing the creation or exacerbation of large imbalances and the resultant auction price dislocations that can be caused by the cancelation of Locked-in Orders after the Lock-in Time and before the Opening or Closing Auction match. As discussed in the Purpose section, while ARC provides a useful risk management tool for Members and clearing firms, the proposed rule change
Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will provide enhanced clarity on the operation of the ARC mechanism with respect to orders eligible for execution in the Opening or Closing Auction after the Lock-in Time and before the auction match, thereby eliminating any potential confusion in this regard.
IEX 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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will increase intermarket competition because it is designed to protect the Exchange's Opening and Closing Auctions thereby enhancing its ability to compete in the market for corporate listings.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposal will impose an intramarket burden on competition because, notwithstanding the limited proposed exception for Locked-in Orders, ARC remains available to all Members on a fair and equal basis, and the Exchange continues to provide a mechanism to enable Members to manage their risk by preventing trading that is erroneous or exceeds a Member's financial resources, thereby contributing to the stability of the equities markets.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under 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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”). The requested
Northern Lights Fund Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company, and AlphaCore Capital, LLC (the “Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (collectively with the Trust, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on August 3, 2017 and amended on November 29, 2017.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January 29, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Northern Lights Fund Trust, 17605 Wright Street, Omaha, NE 68130 and AlphaCore Capital, LLC, 875 Prospect Street #315, La Jolla, CA 92037.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6990, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the Funds pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the “Advisory Agreement”).
2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to hire certain Subadvisers pursuant to subadvisory agreements and materially amend existing subadvisory agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards, appropriate disclosure to Fund shareholders and notification about subadvisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Funds' shareholders.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as further explained in the application, the Advisory Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval while the role of the Subadvisers is substantially similar to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of subadvisory agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Funds. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Subadvisers that are more advantageous for the Funds.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the ongoing exhibition “Alberto Savinio,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also
Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Abukar Ali Adan aka Abukar Ali Aden aka Sheikh Abukar aka Ibrahim Afghan committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain additional objects to be included in the exhibition “Beyond the Nile: Egypt and the Classical World” (initially entitled “Egypt—Greece—Rome: Cultures in Contact”), imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The additional objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the additional exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, from on or about March 27, 2018, until on or about September 9, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Wanas al-Faqih committed, or poses a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Muhammad al-Ghazali, aka Rashid, aka Muhammad Abd al-Karim al-Ghazali, aka Abu Hisham Mawari, aka Abu Hisham al-Mawari, aka Abu Sa'id, aka Abu Faris committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152, subpart F—
CSXT has certified that: (1) No local rail traffic has moved over the Line during the past two years; (2) any overhead traffic on the Line can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of a rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is either pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or had been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment of service shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on February 8, 2018, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
CSXT has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by January 12, 2018. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line.
If consummation has not been effected by CSXT's filing of a notice of consummation by January 9, 2019, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Intent of Waiver with respect to land.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a proposal from the City of Cedar Rapids (sponsor), Cedar Rapids, IA, to release 3 tracts totaling 489.72 + (Tract 1: 259.88 + acres, Tract 2: 215.52 + acres and Tract 3; 14.32 + acres) of land from the federal obligation dedicating it to aeronautical use and to authorize these parcels to be used for revenue-producing, non-aeronautical purposes.
Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2018.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Marty Lenss, CM, 2515 Arthur Collins Parkway SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404-8952, (319) 362-3131.
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, Telephone number (816) 329-2644, Fax number (816) 329-2611, email address:
The FAA invites public comment on the request to change approximately 489.72 + acres of airport property at The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID) from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical for revenue producing use. The tracts of land are located along the Northern boundary of the airport, near 76th Avenue SW and on the corner of 76th Ave. SW and Edgewood Road SW and the corner of 76th Ave. and 18th St. SW. These tracts will be used for light industrial/business park.
No airport landside or airside facilities are presently located on these tracts, nor are airport developments contemplated in the future. There is no current use of the surface of these tracts. The tracts will serve as revenue producing lots with the proposed change from aeronautical to non-aeronautical. The request submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the change to non-aeronautical status of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID) is proposing the release of three tracts of land totaling 489.72 more or less acres from aeronautical to non-aeronautical. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The rental of the subject property will result in the land at The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID) being changed from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c) (2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market rental value for the property. The annual income from rent payments will generate a long-term, revenue-producing stream that will further the Sponsor's obligation under FAA Grant Assurance number 24, to make The Eastern Iowa Airport as financially self-sufficient as possible.
Following is a legal description of the subject airport property at The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID):
A tract of land located in Section 24, Township 82 North, Range 8 West of the fifth principal meridian, Linn County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point 20.00 feet South of the North line of said Section 24 and 33.00 feet East of the West line of said Section 24; thence North 88°28′54″ East, 2636.28 feet to the East line of the Northwest quarter of said section; thence North 88°24′05″ East, 2545.44 feet; thence South 32°33′15″ East, 85.48 feet to the West right-of-way line of Edgewood Road SW; thence South 02°00′36″ East, 2151.98 feet along said west right-of-way line; thence South 89°42′36″ West, 5229.22 feet; thence North 01°57′33″ West, 2109.54 feet to the point of beginning, containing 11,320,472 square feet or 259.88 acres more or less.
A tract of land located in Section 19, Township 82 North, Range 7 West of the fifth principal meridian, Linn County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 19, thence 42.52 feet along the West line of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter to the point of beginning; thence continuing along said West line south 01°59′21″ East, 1279.63 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence South 01°59′49″ East, 275.12 feet along the west line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence North 89°41′40″ East, 1286.86 feet to the west right-of-way of 18th Street SW; thence South 01°57′44″ East, 514.69 feet along said West right-of-way line; thence South 81°10′45″ West, 874.43 feet; thence South 89°42′36″ West, 4335.69 feet to the East right-of-way line of Edgewood Road SW; thence North 02°00′36″ West, 2156.18 feet along said East right-of-way line; thence North 29°37′07″ East, 55.43 feet to the South right-of-way line of 76th Avenue SW; thence North 89°51′08″ East, 2569.06 feet along said South right-of-way line to the East line of the Northwest quarter of said section 19; thence North 89°39′57″ East, 1320.46 feet continuing along said South right-of-way line to the point of beginning, containing 9,388,150 square feet or 215.52 acres more or less.
A parcel of land located in the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 20, Township 82 North, range 7 West of the fifth principal meridian lying west of the C.R. & I.C. Inter Railway, Linn County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the South right-of-way line of 76th Avenue SW and the West right-of-way line of the C.R. & I.C. Inter Railway Company, thence South 07°13′24″ West, 624.42 feet along said West right-of-way to the South line of said North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence South 89°37′21″ West, 959.81 feet along said South line to the East right-of-way line of 18th Street SW; thence North 01°57′44″ West, 569.18 feet along said East right-of-way line; thence North 43°49′35″ East, 69.73 feet to the South right-of-way line of 76th Avenue SW; thence North 89°37′23″ East, 1009.53 feet along said South right-of-way line to the point of
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Written comments should be submitted by March 12, 2018.
You may submit comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 293-2251.
•
Walter Culbreath, NIO-0300, (202) 366-1566, Office of the Chief Information Officer, W51-316, U.S Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee January 16, 2018, public meeting
The United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for January 16, 2018.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Betty Birdsong, Acting United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This final rule establishes the initial air quality designations for certain areas in the United States (U.S.) for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
The final rule is effective on April 9, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003. All documents in the docket are listed in the index at
In addition, the EPA has established a website for the initial SO
For general questions concerning this action, please contact Liz Etchells, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, telephone (919) 541-0253, email at
Region I—Leiran Biton, telephone (617) 918-1267, email at
Region II—Ken Fradkin, telephone (212) 637-3702, email at
Region III—Ruth Knapp, telephone (215) 814-2191, email at
Region IV—Twunjala Bradley, telephone (404) 562-9352, email at
Region V—John Summerhays, telephone (312) 886-6067, email at
Region VI—Bob Imhoff, telephone (214) 665-7262, email at
Region VII—David Peter, telephone (913) 551-7397, email at
Region VIII—Adam Clark, telephone (303) 312-7104, email at
Region IX—Anita Lee, telephone (415) 972-3958, email at
Region X—John Chi, telephone (206) 553-1185, email at
The public may inspect the recommendations from the states, territories and tribes, our recent letters notifying the affected states, territories, and tribes of our intended designations, and area-specific technical support information at the following locations:
The information can also be reviewed online at
The following is an outline of the Preamble.
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
The purpose of this final action is to announce and promulgate initial air quality designations for certain areas in the U.S. for the 2010 SO
This is the third round of designations for the 2010 SO
The list of areas being designated in the affected states and the boundaries of each area appear in the tables for each state within the regulatory text at the end of this document. For areas in this action that meet our definition of “Attainment/Unclassifiable,” the EPA notes this inversion, from previous rounds, of the order of the words “Attainment” and “Unclassifiable” in the amended term “Attainment/Unclassifiable area” has no consequence itself, and that there are no regulatory consequences of this change in, or clarified interpretation of, terminology to the areas in which the terms “Attainment/Unclassifiable” or “Unclassifiable” are applied. For consistency, we are also inverting the order of “Attainment” and “Unclassifiable” for areas previously designated in Round 2 (81 FR 45039 and 81 FR 89870). This re-ordering of the terms has no regulatory consequence and does not revisit the determinations made in Round 2 for these areas. The EPA believes this change is consistent with Congress's definition of “Attainment area” in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii), and will improve public understanding and make clearer what regulations apply to areas designated in this way, which states have commented they believe is important for the economic development of such areas.
These designations are based on the EPA's nationwide analytical approach and technical assessment of and conclusions regarding the weight of evidence for each area, including but not limited to available air quality monitoring data or air quality modeling. With respect to air quality monitoring data, the EPA considered data from at least the most recent three calendar years 2014-2016 as available. In the modeling runs conducted by states or third parties, the impacts of the actual emissions for recent 3-year periods (
In 2010, the EPA issued a notice of final rulemaking that revised the primary SO
The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in the CAA section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)). After promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for Nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states, territories, and tribes, as appropriate, of any intended modifications to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary.
After invoking a 1-year extension of the deadlines to designate areas, as provided for in section 107 of the Act, the EPA completed an initial round of SO
To meet the first court-ordered deadline, additional areas were designated on June 30, 2016, and November 29, 2016 (collectively referred to as “Round 2”).
On or about August 22, 2017, consistent with section 107(d)(1)(b)(ii) of the CAA, the EPA notified affected states, territories, and tribes of its intended designation of certain specific areas as either Nonattainment, Attainment/Unclassifiable, or Unclassifiable for the SO
The EPA revised the primary SO
Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO
After the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate all areas of the country as either “Nonattainment,” “Attainment,” or “Unclassifiable,” for that NAAQS pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. As part of these Round 3 designations, the EPA is implementing its interpretation of statutory terms under CAA section 107(d) nationwide and is basing these designations on the EPA's nationwide analytical approach and technical analysis, including evaluation of monitoring data and air quality modeling, applied to the available evidence for each area.
Regarding statutory definitions and the EPA's interpretations of such, section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a Nonattainment area as an area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. An Attainment area is defined by the CAA as any area that meets the NAAQS and does not contribute to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are defined by the CAA as those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.
For the purpose of this action for the 2010 SO
In this action, an
In this action, an
This nationwide analytical approach also includes but is not limited to: (1) EPA's interpretations of other terms in the context of Round 3 of the 2010 SO
The EPA notes that CAA section 107(d) provides the agency with discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms in the definition of a Nonattainment area (
Similarly, the EPA's position is that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the appropriate application of the term “area” to include geographic areas based upon full or partial county boundaries, as may be appropriate for a particular NAAQS. For example, CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) explicitly provides that the EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an area “or portions thereof,” and under CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(iv) a designation remains in effect for an area “or portion thereof” until the EPA redesignates it.
By no later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) provides that each state governor is required to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the revised SO
In the March 24, 2011, guidance, the EPA stated that the perimeter of a county containing a violation would be the initial presumptive boundary for Nonattainment areas, but also stated that the state, tribe and/or the EPA could conduct additional area-specific analyses that could justify establishing either a larger or smaller area. The EPA indicated that the following factors should be considered in an analysis of whether to exclude portions of a county
Following entry of the March 2, 2015, court order setting forth the schedule for the EPA to complete SO
On March 8, 2017, the EPA issued a memo to clarify what version of the AERMOD modeling system is the most appropriate for consideration by the agency in the SO
For designations for the SO
The deadline for Round 3 designations and the practical difficulties of obtaining source emissions data for modeling, and complete, quality-assured, certified SO
If these submissions cause an area to change from Nonattainment to Attainment or Unclassifiable, the EPA will change the designation for the area following the process described in the preceding paragraph. If inclusion of 2017 data or related information about 2017 air quality indicates Nonattainment in an area that was designated Attainment or Unclassifiable, we will evaluate the reasons for the violation in the area and determine the appropriate course of action, which could include additional future action to change the designation for the area to Nonattainment.
For areas of Indian country, there are no violating monitors. The Navajo Nation submitted modeling analyses for the areas around two SO
Information providing the basis for this final action are provided in a final technical support document (TSD)
When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either Nonattainment, Attainment, or Unclassifiable. This action addresses designation determinations for certain areas for the 2010 SO
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as air quality designations after promulgating a new revised NAAQS are exempt under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action fulfills the non-discretionary duty for the EPA to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and does not contain any information collection activities.
This designation action under CAA section 107(d) is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. Section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA explicitly provides that designations are exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA. In addition, designations under CAA section 107(d) are not among the list of actions that are subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of CAA section 307(d).
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the federal government and the states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action concerns the designation of certain areas in the U.S. for the 2010 SO
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, after the EPA promulgated the 2010 primary SO
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this determination is contained in Section IX of this preamble, “Environmental Justice Concerns.”
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
This final action to designate certain areas for the 2010 SO
For the same reasons discussed above that make the final rule nationally applicable, the Administrator also has determined that the final designations are of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because, in the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324,
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
| 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 |