| Page Range | 13183-13373 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 13373 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South Sudan | |
| 83 FR 13371 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities | |
| 83 FR 13367 - Military Service by Transgender Individuals | |
| 83 FR 13361 - Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States | |
| 83 FR 13355 - Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States | |
| 83 FR 13322 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation | |
| 83 FR 13263 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 13266 - Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) Information to be Verified for the 2019-2020 Award Year | |
| 83 FR 13257 - National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS); Executive Council Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13302 - Notice of Proposed Filing of Plats of Survey: Montana | |
| 83 FR 13211 - Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; Rules of Procedure for Contract Disputes Act Cases | |
| 83 FR 13339 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration | |
| 83 FR 13340 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Entry Point Filing Form-International Registry | |
| 83 FR 13338 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial Space Transportation Reusable Launch Vehicle and Reentry Licensing Regulation | |
| 83 FR 13340 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations | |
| 83 FR 13339 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: License Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site | |
| 83 FR 13338 - Notice of Availability of Categorical Exclusion and Record of Decision for the Proposed West Flow Area Navigation Standard Instrument Departure Procedures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport as per the Memorandum Regarding Implementation of Court Order per City of Phoenix, Arizona v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963 (D.C. Circuit 2017) | |
| 83 FR 13206 - Certain Non-Government Attorneys Not Authorized To Participate in Examinations of Books and Witnesses as a Section 6103(n) Contractor | |
| 83 FR 13183 - Allocation of Controlled Group Research Credit | |
| 83 FR 13347 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 990-BL and Form 6069. | |
| 83 FR 13259 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13348 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 13346 - Credit for Indian Coal Production and Inflation Adjustment Factor for Calendar Year 2017 | |
| 83 FR 13292 - HEARTH Act Approval of Business Leasing Regulations | |
| 83 FR 13346 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 4506 | |
| 83 FR 13293 - HEARTH Act Approval of Ramona Band of Cahuilla's Business Site Leasing Ordinance | |
| 83 FR 13347 - Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC); Nominations | |
| 83 FR 13294 - HEARTH Act Approval of Business Leasing Regulations | |
| 83 FR 13300 - Land Acquisitions: The Shawnee Tribe | |
| 83 FR 13300 - HEARTH Act Approval of Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Business, Agricultural, Residential, Wind and Solar Resource, and Wind Energy Evaluation Leases | |
| 83 FR 13299 - HEARTH Act Approval of Coquille Indian Tribe Ordinance | |
| 83 FR 13295 - HEARTH Act Approval of Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Indian Lands Leasing Act of 2017 Regulations | |
| 83 FR 13297 - HEARTH Act Approval of Kootenai Tribe of Idaho's Regulations | |
| 83 FR 13298 - HEARTH Act Approval of Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe's Business Site Leasing Regulations | |
| 83 FR 13349 - Recruitment Notice for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel | |
| 83 FR 13349 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 13281 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13305 - Certain IOT Devices and Components Thereof (IOT, The Internet of Things)-Web Applications Displayed on a Web Browser; Termination of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 13255 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2016 | |
| 83 FR 13337 - Actions Taken at March 8, 2018, Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13279 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 83 FR 13344 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions. | |
| 83 FR 13303 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Surface Mining Permit Applications-Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan | |
| 83 FR 13185 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Port Gibson, MS | |
| 83 FR 13337 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13254 - Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 13257 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 13232 - Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 13236 - Carton-Closing Staples From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 13315 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 13341 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Part 249 Preservation of Records | |
| 83 FR 13343 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Report of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates-Form 183 | |
| 83 FR 13291 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 13342 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Submission of Audit Reports-Part 248 | |
| 83 FR 13350 - Notice of Open Public Roundtable | |
| 83 FR 13270 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
| 83 FR 13269 - Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 13270 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge | |
| 83 FR 13343 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Reporting Required for International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) | |
| 83 FR 13291 - Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
| 83 FR 13280 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 13271 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 83 FR 13275 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725F); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 13275 - Xcel Energy Services Inc.; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 13272 - City of Lewiston, Maine; Notice of Application for Surrender of License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 13273 - Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 13275 - City of Dover, Delaware; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 13274 - Florida Southeast Connection, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 13312 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground Coal Mines | |
| 83 FR 13290 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13302 - Tribal Information Sessions | |
| 83 FR 13272 - Edison Electric Institute; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 13278 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 13277 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 13314 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Excavation Cave-In Protection System Design Standard | |
| 83 FR 13225 - Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees Program | |
| 83 FR 13258 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Commitment Form | |
| 83 FR 13337 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Katibat al-Imam al-Bukhari, aka Imam Bukhori Jamaat, aka Imam Bukhari Battalion, aka Imam Bukhari Jamaat, aka Imam Al-Bukhari Battalion, aka IBB, aka Imom Buxoriy Katibasi, aka KIB, aka Imam al-Bukhoriy Brigade, aka Katibatul Imom al-Buxoriy as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 13277 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13280 - Information Collection; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Contract Financing Final Payment (GSA Form 1142 Release of Claims) | |
| 83 FR 13286 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Compounded Drug Products That Are Essentially Copies of an Approved Drug Product Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act | |
| 83 FR 13283 - Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee and the Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 13226 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13313 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Respiratory Protection Standard | |
| 83 FR 13183 - Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco, and Covered Tobacco Products; Change of Office Name and Address; Technical Amendment | |
| 83 FR 13315 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Extension of Review Period of Advance Notice of Proposed Changes Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Methodology | |
| 83 FR 13304 - In the Matter of Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission's Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 83 FR 13306 - Meeting of The Judicial Conference; Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure | |
| 83 FR 13350 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Eligibility Verification Reports (EVRs) | |
| 83 FR 13281 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient | |
| 83 FR 13288 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines and Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments | |
| 83 FR 13244 - Stainless Steel Flanges From People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 13246 - Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures | |
| 83 FR 13256 - Plastic Decorative Ribbon From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
| 83 FR 13251 - Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 | |
| 83 FR 13235 - Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results; 2013-2014 | |
| 83 FR 13203 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Revised 2018 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; 2018 Catch Limit | |
| 83 FR 13233 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Spain: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part | |
| 83 FR 13259 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 83 FR 13205 - Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species Fishery by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 13252 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the United Kingdom: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
| 83 FR 13228 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
| 83 FR 13305 - Certain Bar Code Readers, Scan Engines, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting an Amended Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation Based on a License and Settlement Agreement; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 83 FR 13329 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Frequent Trader Program | |
| 83 FR 13316 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section (a) of Exchange Rule 1001, Position Limits, To Increase the Position Limits for Options | |
| 83 FR 13323 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits, and Exchange Rule 309, Exercise Limits | |
| 83 FR 13330 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IM-3120-2 of BOX Rule 3120 (Position Limits) To Increase the Position Limits for Options on the Following Exchange Traded Funds: iShares China Large-Cap ETF, iShares MSCI EAFE ETF, iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF, iShares Russell 2000 ETF, iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF, iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF, PowerShares QQQ Trust, and iShares MSCI Japan ETF | |
| 83 FR 13239 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part | |
| 83 FR 13249 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
| 83 FR 13284 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy Survey | |
| 83 FR 13230 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 83 FR 13242 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy: Final Affirmative Determination | |
| 83 FR 13222 - Andrew Pickens Ranger District, Sumter National Forest, South Carolina; Supplement to the 2013 AP Loblolly Pine Removal and Restoration Project | |
| 83 FR 13222 - Notice of a Determination Regarding the Fever Tick Status of the State of Chihuahua, Excluding the Municipalities of Guadalupe y Calvo and Morelos | |
| 83 FR 13192 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Cement Kilns, Revisions to Portland Cement Manufacturing Plant and Natural Gas Compression Station Regulations, and Removal of Nitrogen Oxides Reduction and Trading Program Replaced by Other Programs and Regulations | |
| 83 FR 13198 - Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Redesignation of the Chicago and Granite City Areas to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard | |
| 83 FR 13187 - Safety Zone; Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL | |
| 83 FR 13190 - Air Plan Revisions; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; Navajo Nation; California; Correcting Amendments | |
| 83 FR 13196 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to East Helena Lead SIP | |
| 83 FR 13306 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records | |
| 83 FR 13208 - Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation | |
| 83 FR 13309 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending its Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco, and Covered Tobacco Products regulations to reflect a change of office name and mailing address for the Center for Tobacco Products' (CTP's) Office of Compliance and Enforcement. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of the Agency's regulations.
This rule is effective March 28, 2018.
May Nelson, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1-877-CTP-1373,
FDA is amending our regulations in part 1140 (21 CFR part 1140) to reflect the change of an office name and the mailing address in the regulation. The office name was the Office of Compliance and the new office name is Office of Compliance and Enforcement. The mailing address for notices submitted under § 1140.30(a)(2) is updated to CTP's Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Publication of this document constitutes final action under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because the amendments to the regulations provide only technical changes to correct an office name and address, and are nonsubstantive. To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553(d) applies, FDA has determined that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this rule effective upon publication in the
Advertising, Labeling, Smoking, Tobacco.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 1140 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 301
(a) * * *
(2) * * * The manufacturer, distributor, or retailer shall send this notice to the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations relating to the allocation of the credit for increasing research activities (research credit) to corporations and trades or businesses under common control (controlled groups). This document also contains final regulations relating to the allocation of the railroad track maintenance credit and the election for a reduced research credit.
James Holmes, at (202) 317-4137; (not a toll-free number).
This document amends 26 CFR part 1 to provide rules relating to sections 41, 45G, and 280C of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). On April 3, 2015, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published final and temporary regulations (TD 9717) (temporary regulations) in the
The preamble to the temporary regulations fully describes the updates to the regulations under sections 41, 45G, and 280C.
One written comment responding to the proposed regulations was received. No requests for a public hearing were made and no public hearing was held. After consideration of the comment, the proposed regulations are adopted without change by this Treasury decision.
No comments were received related to the proposed regulations under section 41 or section 280C. One commenter requested the regulations under § 1.45G-1(f)(8) be amended to explicitly provide that qualified railroad track maintenance expenditures (QRTMEs) associated with a track assignment reside with the assignee (and not with the track owner) when there has been an intra-group track assignment. Revising those rules is beyond the scope of these regulations. Therefore, the Treasury Department and IRS decline to adopt the comment.
The temporary regulations are obsolete for taxable years beginning on or after April 2, 2018.
Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Because the final regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded the final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. No comments were received on the proposed regulations.
These final regulations provide necessary guidance for corporations that file a consolidated return regarding the allocation of the group credit to members of certain controlled groups of corporations and trades or businesses under common control. It is necessary to provide this administrative relief for these controlled groups as of April 2, 2018, the expiration date of the temporary regulations, to remove impediments to claiming the research and railroad track maintenance credits and making the election for a reduced research credit. Accordingly, good cause is found for dispensing with a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
The principal author of these regulations is James Holmes, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(c)
(d)
(3)
(e)
(j) * * *
(4)
(5)
(f) * * *
(4)
(5)
(ii)
(g) * * *
(4)
(5)
(b) * * *
(2)
(c) * * *
(2)
(3)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing an emergency temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River, extending the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 405 to MM 408. This emergency safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with vessels transiting this area during high water. This rule prohibits persons and vessels from entering the safety zone area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from March 28, 2018 through 7 p.m. on March 31, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 10 a.m. on March 13, 2018 through March 28, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Todd Manow, Sector Lower Mississippi River Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4813, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Increasing high water in this area requires immediate action to
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that there are potential hazards associated with increasing high water, including possible emergency operations to repair damage to power distribution infrastructure taking place on the left descending bank of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 405 and 408 in the vicinity of the Entergy Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Facility, in Port Gibson, MS. Loss of the power distribution lines system would be catastrophic to large areas of Louisiana and Mississippi. This rule is needed to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with vessels transiting this safety zone during high water.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River, extending the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 405 to MM 408. Transit into and through this area is prohibited for all traffic beginning at 10 a.m. on March 13, 2018 and will continue through 7 p.m. on March 31, 2018. The COTP will terminate the enforcement of this safety zone before March 31, 2018 if the high water event ceases. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River.
Requests for entry will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 1-866-777-2784 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to transit this safety zone shall not meet, pass, or overtake any vessel currently transiting, shall maintain slowest speed for safe navigation, and shall comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
This safety zone may include closures and/or navigation restrictions and requirements that are vital to maintaining safe navigation on the Lower Mississippi River during the high water. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of any changes in the restrictions or the enforcement period for the safety zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This emergency safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering or transiting through a three-mile section of the navigable waterways of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 405 to MM 408, in the vicinity of Port Gibson, MS, from 10 a.m. on March 13, 2018 through 7 p.m. on March 31, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an emergency safety zone lasting approximately nineteen days that will prohibit entry into a three-mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River during a hazardous high-water event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination will be made available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 1-866-777-2784 or on VHF-FM channel 16.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone shall not meet, pass, or overtake any vessel currently transiting, shall maintain slowest speed for safe navigation, and shall comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters on Pensacola Bay within 100 yards of each vessel participating in the Tall Ships Pensacola marine event and parade in Pensacola, FL and within 100 yards of the Port of Pensacola for the duration of the marine event and parade. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on these navigable waters during the Tall Ships Pensacola marine event. This rule will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on April 12, 2018 through 8 p.m. on April 15, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-441-5940, email
The sponsor for the Tall Ships Pensacola marine event submitted an application for a marine event permit for the event that will take place from 8 a.m. on April 12, 2018 through 8 p.m. on April 15, 2018. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined a safety zone is necessary to protect the public from the potential hazards associated with the tall ships during the organized parade, public tours, and sailings of these tall ships. In response, on February 22, 2018 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL (83 FR 7644). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this Tall Ships Pensacola marine event. During the comment period that ended March 9, 2018, we received zero comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the tall ships during the organized parade, public tours, and sailings of these tall ships on April 12, 2018 through April 15, 2018 will be a safety concern for any vessels or persons in the vicinity of waters on Pensacola Bay within 100 yards of each vessel participating in the Tall Ships Pensacola marine event and parade in Pensacola, FL and within 100 yards of the Port of Pensacola for the duration of the marine event and parade. This rule is needed to protect the public, mariners, and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the tall ships during the organized parade, public tours, and sailings of these tall ships.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on February 22, 2018. There are no substantive changes to the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed NPRM. There is one technical amendment in the regulatory text of this rule, which corrects the paragraph numbering in § 165.T08-0086(c).
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on Pensacola Bay within 100 yards of each vessel participating in the Tall Ships Pensacola marine event from 8 a.m. on April 12, 2018 through 8 p.m. on April 15, 2018, covering each vessel from when the vessel arrives at Pensacola, FL, when moored at the Port of Pensacola, 30°24′07.2″ N, 87°12′44.7″ W, when underway in parade from position 30°24′07.2″ N, 87°12′44.7″ W to 30°19′52.6″ N, 87°18′31.5″ W, and when the vessel departs Pensacola, FL. The Coast Guard also is establishing a temporary safety zone on Pensacola Bay within 100 yards of the Port of Pensacola for the duration of the Tall Ships Pensacola marine event from 8 a.m. on April 12, 2018 through 8 p.m. on April 15, 2018. This rule is needed to provide for the safety of life and property on these navigable waters during the Tall Ship Pensacola marine event. This rule restricts transit into, through, and within the zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the zone.
Spectator vessels desiring to transit the zone may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer must be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the zone during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through the COTP or a designated representative. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the zone, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the zone in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the zone and remain moored through the duration of the event.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the zone, citation for failure to comply, or both.
The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protectors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the proposed rulemaking. This safety zone will take place on a small area of Pensacola Bay, lasting for only four days from April 12, 2018 through April 15, 2018. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone on Pensacola Bay within 100 yards of the Port of Pensacola and within 100 yards of any vessel participating in the Tall Ships Pensacola marine event and parade from April 12, 2018 through April 15, 2018. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter into or transit through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channels 16 or by telephone at 251-441-5976.
(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(4) All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
(5) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger participants in the zone or any other vessels.
(6) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
(7) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
(8) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(9) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(10) The Patrol Commander will terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule, correcting amendment.
On April 29, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final rule in the
This action is effective on March 28, 2018.
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3073,
This action corrects inadvertent errors in the amendatory instructions in final rulemakings affecting 40 CFR parts 49 and 52. An explanation of each correction is listed below.
On April 29, 2011 (76 FR 23876), the EPA published a direct final rule that, among other actions, moved sections 49.22, 49.23 and 49.24 out of subpart A (Tribal Authority), which is intended to include provisions relating generally to tribal authority regardless of the EPA Region in which a tribe is located, to sections 49.5511, 49.5512, and 49.5513, respectively, in subpart L (Implementation Plans for Tribes—Region IX) such that all implementation plan provisions that apply specifically to Region IX tribes are located together. However, the action of moving section 49.22 to 49.5511 could not be done as section 49.5511 was already in existence at that time. In this action, the EPA is redesignating section 49.22 in subpart A as section 49.5515 in subpart L. The EPA is also taking this opportunity to add certain headings in subpart L for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Navajo Nation consistent with the other tribes included in subpart L.
On January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2228), the EPA published a final rule approving San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) as a revision to the California SIP. However, the amendatory instruction was inaccurate. More specifically, the instructions for revisions to section 52.220 should have added paragraph (c)(388)(i)(B)(
On February 13, 2012 (77 FR 7536), the EPA published a final rule approving SJVUAPCD Rule 4612 (Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations) and Rule 4653 (Adhesives and Sealants) as revisions to the California SIP. Due to inaccurate amendatory instructions, the approval of the two rules could not be incorporated into section 52.220(c)(388)(i)(B). More specifically, the instructions for revisions to section 52.220 should have added paragraphs (c)(388)(i)(B)(
On July 2, 2012 (77 FR 39181), the EPA published a final rule approving
On June 14, 2017 (82 FR 27125), the EPA published a final rule approving the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) Rule 206 (Processing of Applications) as a revision to the California SIP. However, the instructions for revisions to section 52.220 should have added paragraph (c)(442)(i)(A)(
On June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28240), the EPA published a direct final rule approving Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) Rule 1118 (Aerospace Assembly, Rework and Component Manufacturing Operations) as a revision to the California SIP. However, the approval of MDAQMD Rule 1118 could not be incorporated into section 52.220(c)(485) because the instructions for revisions to section 52.220 added paragraph (c)(485)(B), which is inconsistent with the current format for adding paragraphs to 52.220(c). The instructions should have added paragraph (c)(485)(i)(B). The EPA is correcting the amendatory instructions for MDAQMD Rule 1118 in today's action.
The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is unnecessary because the underlying rules for which this correcting amendment have been prepared were already subject to 30-day comment periods. Further, this action is consistent with the purposes and rationales of the final rules for which inaccurate amendatory instructions are being corrected herein. Because this action does not change the EPA's analyses or overall actions, no purpose would be served by additional public notice and comment. Consequently, additional public notice and comment are unnecessary.
The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. This action merely corrects inaccurate amendatory instructions in previous rulemakings. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation with state officials as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Because this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution, Indians—lands, Indians—tribal government.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(279) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(388) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(
(
(H) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
(
(485) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Maryland. The revisions pertain to reasonably available control technology (RACT) for cement kilns, revisions to and recodification of certain provisions for Portland cement manufacturing plants (cement plants) and internal combustion (IC) engines at natural gas compression stations, and removal of the obsolete Nitrogen Oxides (NO
This final rule is effective on April 27, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0309. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at
On November 13, 2017, (82 FR 52259), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of revisions to Maryland regulations pertaining to RACT for cement kilns, revisions to and recodification of certain provisions for Portland cement plants and IC engines at natural gas compression stations, and removal of the obsolete NO
The submission is comprised of three State actions pertaining to amendments to the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.01.10, COMAR 26.11.09.08, COMAR 26.11.29, and COMAR 26.11.30. The amendments address the requirement for NO
As explained in the NPR, three areas or portions of areas in Maryland were designated as nonattainment under the 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). Under section 182 of the CAA, states must review and revise the RACT requirements in their SIP to ensure that these requirements would still be considered RACT under the new, more stringent NAAQS. Major stationary sources
The NO
EPA discontinued administration of the NO
Revised COMAR 26.11.30 establishes a limit of 3.4 pounds (lbs) of NO
EPA agrees with Maryland's determination of NO
The November 24, 2015 SIP revision submittal also included several state regulatory actions for inclusion into the Maryland SIP. On May 21, 2010, Maryland repealed COMAR 26.11.29 and COMAR 26.11.30, with a State effective date of May 31, 2010. The requirements for certain large non-electric generating units (EGUs), cement kilns, and IC engines pursuant to the NO
COMAR 26.11.30 formerly included large non-EGUs as participants in the NO
Other specific requirements of the revised Maryland COMAR regulations and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and the technical support document (TSD) for the NPR (available in the docket for this rulemaking at
EPA received two public comments on our November 13, 2017 action proposing to approve Maryland's SIP submittal of November 24, 2015, as supplemented on February 17, 2017.
EPA has reviewed the Maryland SIP revision submittal of November 24, 2015, as supplemented on February 17, 2017, seeking approval of revisions to Maryland regulations that establish RACT for cement kilns for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with requirements in CAA sections 172, 182 and 184, recodifies provisions for Portland cement plants and IC engines at natural gas compression stations, and removes the NO
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to Maryland regulations COMAR 26.11.01.10, COMAR 26.11.09.08, COMAR 26.11.29, and COMAR 26.11.30 as discussed in section I of this final action. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 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 approving Maryland RACT for cement kilns, removal of Maryland regulations for obsolete trading programs, and recodification of provisions related to cement plants and IC engines at natural gas compression stations may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revision read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Montana on September 11, 2013. The submittal revises the portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that pertain to the East Helena Lead SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act).
This final rule is effective on April 27, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0634. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227,
The EPA is taking final action pertaining to SIP revisions that stem from a June 10, 2013, Montana Board of Environmental Review Order (Board Order) which removes a stipulated condition in an August 4, 1995 Board Order. The condition limited the allowable concentration of lead in raw feed material at the American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility. Specifically, American Chemet requested a change to the 1995 Board Order which would eliminate Exhibit A, Section 3, Subsection B. This subsection reads:
All other East Helena Lead SIP provisions, including direct numerical limits on lead emissions from American Chemet Corporation's East Helena facility, would remain unchanged.
On January 12, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking for this action (83 FR 1602). The proposed rulemaking discussed the history of the East Helena lead SIP, including the lead in feed limits that were created in the 1995 Board Order in order to address the area's nonattainment status for the 1978 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The principal target for curtailing lead emissions was the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) facility, which was a lead smelter located adjacent to American Chemet's East Helena facility. In addition to shutting down its operations in 2001, ASARCO demolished its stacks in 2009. The EPA subsequently promulgated a new, more stringent, lead NAAQS standard (0.15 ug/m
In response to the DEQ's request for the EPA's guidance concerning modifying the 1995 Board order to eliminate Exhibit A, Section 3, Subsection B, the EPA sent a letter dated December 18, 2009 (see docket) which outlined conditions which the state of Montana must meet in order for Exhibit A, Section 3, Subsection B to be removed from the East Helena lead SIP and, as outlined in 83 FR 1602, those conditions have been met. For details, please see the January 12, 2018 notice proposing approval of the revision.
The EPA received two public comments on our proposed action to approve Montana's September 11, 2013 SIP submittal. One comment was submitted by Neal Blossom, Director of Global Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for American Chemet Corporation. The other comment was submitted anonymously. Below is a summary of the comments and the EPA's responses.
The EPA is taking final action to approve the revisions to Montana's 1995 Board Order to remove Exhibit A, Section 3, Subsection B.
Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. For the reasons explained in our January 12, 2018 proposed rulemaking notice, the removal of Exhibit A, Section 3, Subsection B satisfies the conditions set forth in section 110(l).
Section 193 of the CAA, which only applies to nonattainment areas, prohibits the modification of a SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emissions reductions of such air pollutant. CAA section 193 does not apply to this revision because the American Chemet limits were approved into the SIP after November 15, 1990.
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 a revised State of Montana Board Order as described in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the
Under the CAA, 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 actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements; this action 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 expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
• In addition, the SIP does not 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (Illinois EPA's) request to redesignate the Chicago and Granite City nonattainment areas (hereafter also referred to as the “areas”) to attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for lead, also identified as Pb. EPA is also approving, as revisions to the Illinois state implementation plan (SIP): The state's plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS in the areas for a period of ten years following these redesignations; the emissions inventories for the areas; and rules applying emission limits and other control requirements to lead sources in the areas. EPA is taking these actions in accordance with applicable regulations and guidance that address implementation of the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA proposed this action on October 18, 2017, and received two public comments in response.
This final rule is effective on March 28, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0593. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: Is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established the 2008 primary and secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), and November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), EPA designated the Granite City and Chicago areas, respectively, as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
On January 9, 2014, Illinois EPA submitted to EPA attainment plans for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This submission included a request to incorporate into the Illinois SIP new rules for lead emission sources at Title 35 Illinois Administrative Code (Ill. Adm. Code) Part 226. On June 17, 2014, Illinois EPA supplemented this submission with
On August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51127), EPA published a clean data determination for the Chicago area, based upon air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 design period showing that the area achieved attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
On September 22, 2016, Illinois EPA requested that the Granite City and Chicago lead nonattainment areas be redesignated to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS and submitted maintenance plans for the areas as a proposed revision to the Illinois SIP. In this September 22, 2016, submission, Illinois EPA withdrew most parts of the previous two submissions, but did not withdraw the request that EPA approve, as a revision to the Illinois SIP, the requirements at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 226 to limit lead emissions in the areas. Illinois similarly did not withdraw certain attachments and support documents, such as emissions inventories and modeling data, that are relevant to the request. On February 16, 2017, Illinois EPA clarified certain details regarding the maintenance plan components of its September 22, 2016 submission.
On October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48448), EPA published a direct final rule approving Illinois EPA's request to redesignate the Chicago and Granite City nonattainment areas to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS, the state's maintenance plans for the areas, emissions inventories for the areas, and rules applying emission limits and other control requirements to lead sources in the areas. EPA also concurrently issued a proposal on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48475). The direct final rule contains a detailed analysis of Illinois's submittal and the applicable requirements for purpose of redesignation. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by November 17, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and would not take effect. EPA received an adverse comment prior to the close of the comment period; therefore, on December 8, 2017 (82 FR 57853), EPA published a withdrawal of the direct final rule. EPA is addressing that adverse comment, as well as an additional comment, in this final action.
During the comment period, EPA received two comments, one of which is adverse. A summary of both comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
The lead limits applicable to emission units at the H. Kramer and Mayco sources are codified at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 226. EPA notes that the commenter has mischaracterized the limits that apply to Mayco. As shown in the modeling analysis submitted by Illinois on January 9, 2014, there is no emission unit at Mayco subject to limits of 0.01 gr/dscf. In fact, the modeling in Illinois' submission lists four emission units at Mayco: One baghouse limited to 0.001 gr/dscf, as well as three baghouses limited to 0.0001 gr/dscf. Similarly, the modeling lists seven emission units at H. Kramer: Two powered vents and two new baghouses limited to 0.0001 gr/dscf, as well as one powered vent, one older baghouse, and one wet scrubber limited to 0.00001 gr/dscf.
On December 7, 2017, and on March 14, 2018, in support of this final rulemaking, Illinois EPA provided EPA with information relevant to this comment. That information is provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
Illinois EPA's information includes reports of emissions tests from the H. Kramer and Mayco facilities, and all available results indicate compliance with the applicable limits.
Emissions tests conducted at H. Kramer in March 2016 indicate that the average concentration of lead emissions from H. Kramer's older baghouse and wet scrubber are 0.000000602 gr/dscf and 0.000000738 gr/dscf, respectively, within the applicable limit of 0.00001 gr/dscf. Tests conducted at H. Kramer in April 2012 and June 2012 indicate that the average concentration of lead emissions from powered vents labeled “R1COOL” AND “R2COOL” are 0.0000531 gr/dscf and 0.0000491 gr/dscf, respectively, within the applicable limit of 0.0001 gr/dscf, and the average concentration of lead emissions from powered vent labeled “INGOT” is 0.0000055 gr/dscf, within the applicable limit of 0.00001 gr/dscf. Tests conducted at H. Kramer in September 2013 indicate that the average concentration of lead emissions from new baghouses A and B are 0.000003 gr/dscf and 0.000001 gr/dscf, respectively, within the applicable limit of 0.0001 gr/dscf.
Emissions tests conducted at Mayco in April 2016 and June 2016 also indicate that the average concentration of lead emissions from all units are within applicable limits. Tests of
All tests were conducted according to EPA test methods provided at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and all measured values are within the limits provided at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 226. Therefore, EPA does not agree with commenter that these limits are unachievable in practice.
Furthermore, the commenter's broad allegation regarding efficiency guarantees from cartridge manufacturers does not provide adequate support for the position that the limits are not achievable. The commenter did not include any details about what the manufacturer purportedly stated as to the control or capture efficiencies. In the information provided in December 2017, Illinois EPA noted that manufacturer statements about control and capture efficiencies usually apply to particulate matter emissions and are not specific to lead emissions. At H. Kramer and Mayco, lead is a small percentage of total particulate emitted from each point source, and lead emissions cannot be determined without additional laboratory analysis. Therefore, it is likely that any claim by a manufacturer regarding “capture efficiency” or “control efficiency” would not have been provided specifically with respect to lead in terms of gr/dscf. As such, those statements provide no relevant support for the contention that Illinois' lead limits are unachievable.
Additionally, monitoring data show that ambient levels of lead pollution in these areas have fallen to lower levels within the standard of 0.15 μg/m
EPA is approving Illinois' request to redesignate the Chicago and Granite City areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an applicable SIP for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, or other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and the requirements for nonattainment areas under part D of the CAA. Based upon the analysis provided in our direct final rule published on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48448), EPA finds that Illinois has met these criteria.
Approval of this redesignation request changes the official designation of the Chicago, Illinois and Granite City, Illinois areas for the 2008 lead NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. This action also approves, as revisions to the Illinois SIP, the rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 226, maintenance plans for the 2008 lead standard in the Chicago and Granite City areas, and Illinois' 2012 emissions inventories for the Chicago and Granite City areas pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory including all lead sources in the nonattainment area. EPA is approving the Illinois 2012 emissions inventories outlined in Table 5 of the October 17, 2017, direct final rule for the Chicago and Granite City areas as fulfilling this requirement.
In its September 22, 2016, submission, Illinois EPA requested that EPA approve 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 226 as a revision to the Illinois SIP as control measures to maintain attainment in the Chicago and Granite City areas. These rules control emissions from lead sources, specifically at the H. Kramer and Mayco facilities, and inclusion of these rules into the SIP makes these measures permanent and enforceable. In today's action, EPA is approving Illinois' request to modify the SIP to include these rules.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state of planning requirements for these lead nonattainment area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule and notice of availability of a final supplemental environmental assessment (EA).
The National Marine Fisheries Service is issuing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to revise trip limits on the commercial catch of Pacific bluefin tuna applicable to 2018. U.S. commercial fishing vessels are subject to a biennial limit for 2017 and 2018, and the catch limit in 2018 is 114 metric tons (mt). To avoid exceeding the biennial limit, NMFS is imposing a 1-mt trip limit—except for large-mesh drift gillnet vessels, which would be subject to a 2-mt trip limit—throughout 2018 or until the 2018 catch limit is reached and the fishery is closed. This action is necessary for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. This document also announces the availability of a final supplemental Environmental Assessment that analyzed the environmental impacts of imposing a reduced trip limit.
The final rule is effective April 27, 2018.
Copies of the supplemental Environmental Assessment and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Celia Barroso, NMFS,
On December 7, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
This final rule is implemented under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951
The proposed rule contains additional background information, including information on the IATTC, the international obligations of the United States as a member of the IATTC, and the need for regulations. Public comments received are addressed below. The regulatory text in this final rule is unchanged from the regulatory text of the proposed rule.
This final rule revises the trip limits for U.S. commercial vessels that catch Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area (defined as the area bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N and 50° S parallels, the 150° W meridian, and the waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO)) for 2018. A 1-metric ton (mt) trip limit applicable to all U.S. commercial vessels except large-mesh drift gillnet vessels and a 2-mt trip limit applicable to large-mesh drift gillnet vessels will be in effect in 2018 or until the fishery is closed. When the 2018 catch limit of 114 mt is reached, the fishery shall be closed through the end of the 2018 calendar year.
When NMFS determines that the catch limit is expected to be reached in 2018 (based on landings receipts, data submitted in logbooks, and other available fishery information), it will prohibit commercial fishing for, or retention of, Pacific bluefin tuna for the remainder of the calendar year. NMFS will publish a notice in the
NMFS will provide updates on Pacific bluefin tuna catch in the Convention Area to the public via the IATTC listserv and the West Coast Region website:
NMFS received five written comments during the 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule that closed on January 8, 2018. Two comments expressed support for the measures. Another two comments urged a 5-mt trip limit when PBF is landed with yellowfin tuna (YFT) and the majority of the landing consists of YFT. These commenters asserted that more than 1 mt of PBF is often caught incidentally in individual purse seine sets that are targeting YFT. However, NMFS does not have data that confirms the assertion that purse seine vessels harvest between 1 and 5 mt of PBF in sets that are targeting YFT. NMFS will attempt to obtain this data and consider this request in the future management of PBF, if appropriate. Furthermore, these commenters also suggested the rule would have a significant economic impact for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
A fifth commenter suggested a 2-mt trip limit for all gear-types and proposed a phased approach in which, as the annual limit is neared, the trip limit gets reduced to 1 mt and then 0.5 mt. However, because processors in California are not required to submit landing receipts until 15 days after a landing, depending on the date of the landing, NMFS may not have adequate time to reduce the trip limits on time if the catch rate is increased to 2-mt per trip. Furthermore, the proposed trip limits are designed to be large enough to avoid regulatory discards throughout the year, but a 1-mt trip limit would increase the likelihood of regulatory discards for drift gillnet vessels and 0.5-mt trip limit would likely result in regulatory discards for other gear-types as well.
After consulting with the Department of State and the United States Coast Guard, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable laws.
This rule was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Although there are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, existing collection-of-information requirements associated with the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species still apply. These requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0204. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that, for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS received two comments on the certification and they are addressed above under the Public Comments and Responses section. No information received during the public comment period changes NMFS' analysis. Therefore, the initial certification published with the proposed rule—that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities—remains unchanged. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 951
(g) * * *
(3) In 2018, a 1 metric ton trip limit will be in effect, except for vessels using large-mesh (14 inch or greater stretched mesh) drift gillnet gear. In 2018, a 2 metric ton trip limit will be in effect for vessels using large-mesh drift gillnet gear.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the first seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the deep-water species fishery in the GOA will be reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time March 23, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., April 1, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The first seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA is 85 metric tons as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018), for the period 1200 hours, A.l.t., January 20, 2018, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., April 1, 2018.
In accordance with § 679.21(d)(6)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the first seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA will be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery include sablefish, rockfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 21, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations to amend regulations under section 7602(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to administrative proceedings. Current regulations permit any person authorized to receive returns and return information under section 6103(n) and the regulations thereunder to receive and review summoned books, papers, and other data, and, in the presence and under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee, participate fully in the interview of a witness in a summons interview. These proposed regulations significantly narrow the scope of the current regulations by excluding non-government attorneys from receiving summoned books, papers, records, or other data or from participating in the interview of a witness summoned by the IRS to provide testimony under oath, with a limited exception. These proposed regulations affect taxpayers involved in a federal tax examination and other persons whose books and records or testimony are sought to be examined by the IRS under section 7602(a).
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 26, 2018.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132434-17), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132434-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning submission of comments, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901; concerning the proposed regulations, William V. Spatz at (202) 317-5461 (not toll-free numbers).
These proposed regulations amend Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 7602(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to participation by persons described in section 6103(n) and Treas. Reg. § 301.6103(n)-1(a) in receiving and reviewing summoned books, papers, records, or other data and in interviewing a summoned witness under oath. These proposed regulations narrow the scope of the current regulations by providing that certain non-government attorneys hired by the IRS are not authorized to participate in an examination.
On June 18, 2014, temporary regulations (TD 9669) regarding participation in a summons interview of a person described in section 6103(n) were published in the
The United States tax system relies upon taxpayers' self-assessment and reporting of their tax liability. The expansive information-gathering authority that Congress granted to the IRS under the Code includes the IRS's broad examination and summons authority, which allows the IRS to determine the accuracy of that self-assessment. See
Use of outside specialists is appropriate to assist the IRS in determining the correctness of the taxpayer's self-assessed tax liability. The assistance of persons from outside the IRS, such as economists, engineers, appraisers, industry specialists, and actuaries, promotes fair and efficient administration and enforcement of the laws administered by the IRS by providing specialized knowledge, skills, or abilities that the IRS officers or employees assigned to the examination may not possess. Section 6103(n) and Treas. Reg. § 301.6103(n)-1(a) authorize the IRS to disclose returns and return information to these contractors. The regulations under § 301.7602-1(b)(3) were issued to clarify that persons described in section 6103(n) and Treas. Reg. § 301.6103(n)-1(a) may receive and review books, papers, records, or other data summoned by the IRS and, in the presence and under the guidance of an
Executive Order 13789, issued on April 21, 2017 (E.O. 13789, 82 FR 19317), instructs the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary) to review all significant tax regulations issued on or after January 1, 2016, and to take appropriate action to alleviate the burdens of regulations that (i) impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers; (ii) add undue complexity to the Federal tax laws; or (iii) exceed the statutory authority of the IRS.
E.O. 13789 further instructs the Secretary to submit to the President within 60 days a report (First Report) that identifies regulations that meet these criteria. Notice 2017-38 (2017-30 I.R.B. 147 (July 24, 2017)) included the Summons Interview Regulations in a list of eight regulations identified by the Secretary in the First Report as meeting at least one of the first two criteria specified in E.O. 13789. E.O. 13789 further instructs the Secretary to submit to the President a second report (Second Report) that recommends specific actions to mitigate the burden imposed by regulations identified in the First Report.
In response to Notice 2017-38, the Treasury Department and the IRS received seven comments from professional and business associations addressing the Summons Interview Regulations. All but one of these comments recommended removal of the regulations based primarily on the commentators' perception that the regulations create longer and less efficient examinations by improperly delegating authority to outside law firms to conduct examinations. The one commenter that did not recommend removal of the regulations in their entirety requested removal of the provisions permitting a contractor to directly question a witness during a summons interview.
As explained in the preamble to the final Summons Interview Regulations, the regulations do not delegate authority to conduct examinations or summons interviews. Rather, the regulations permit contractors authorized under section 6103(n) to review books and records and be present and ask questions during summons interviews, all under the supervision of IRS officers and employees. See 81 FR 45410-45412.
Comments in response to Notice 2017-38 also raised concerns that the regulations permit the IRS to hire law firms to receive and review summoned information and fully participate in a summons interview on behalf of the government.
On October 16, 2017, the Secretary published the Second Report in the
The Code provides IRS officers and employees with significant and broad powers under its summons authority to question witnesses under oath and to require the production of books and records. The Summons Interview Regulations require the IRS to retain authority over important decisions when section 6103(n) contractors question witnesses, but there is a perceived risk that the IRS may not be able to maintain full control over the actions of a non-government attorney hired by the IRS when such an attorney, with the limited exception described below, questions witnesses. The actions of the non-governmental attorney while questioning witnesses could foreclose IRS officials from independently exercising their judgment. Managing an examination or summons interview is therefore best exercised solely by government employees, including government attorneys, whose only duty is to serve the public interest. These concerns outweigh the countervailing need for the IRS to use non-government attorneys, except in the limited circumstances set forth in proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii). Treasury and the IRS remain confident that the core functions of questioning witnesses and conducting examinations are well within the expertise and ability of government attorneys and examination agents.
Proposed § 301.7602-1(b)(3)(i) retains the rule from the Summons Interview Regulations authorizing section 6103(n) contractors to receive and review summoned information and fully participate in the summons interview, including questioning witnesses. However, proposed § 301.7602-1(b)(3)(ii) is added to prohibit contractors who are attorneys, with the limited exception described below, from participating in the administrative process contemplated by section 7602(a). Under this prohibition, a non-government attorney, with the limited exception described below, may not review summoned books, papers, records or other data or question summoned witnesses on behalf of the IRS unless the attorney is hired by the IRS for a permitted purpose.
As a limited exception to that prohibition, proposed § 301.7602-1(b)(3)(ii) permits the IRS to hire a non-government attorney if the attorney is being hired for specialized substantive subject matter expertise in an area other than federal tax law. Specifically, proposed § 301.7602-1(b)(3)(ii) permits the IRS to hire an attorney who has specialized knowledge of foreign, state, or local law, including tax law, or who is a specialist in non-tax substantive law such as patent law, property law, or environmental law. It would not permit IRS to hire an attorney for non-substantive specialized knowledge, such as civil litigation skills. Proposed § 301.7602-1(b)(3)(ii) also permits the IRS to hire a contractor who may happen to be an attorney, but who is hired for knowledge, skills, or abilities other than providing legal services as an attorney. Further, proposed § 301.7602-1(b)(3)(ii) permits the IRS to hire an entity that employs or is owned by attorneys so long as the expertise they are providing is not prohibited by proposed § 301.7602-1(b)(3)(ii).
These changes are proposed to be effective for examinations begun and summonses served by the IRS on or after the date that these proposed regulations are published in the
Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and affirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Because the proposed regulations would not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS will submit the proposed regulations to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments about the regulations' impact on small businesses.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final, the IRS will consider any written (signed original and 8
The principal author of these regulations is William V. Spatz of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(3)
(ii)
(d)
Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments must be received by April 27, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, may be posted online and placed in the Department's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the
William Blier, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-3435.
Under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, Inspectors General, including the DOJ Inspector General, are responsible for conducting, supervising, and coordinating audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the Federal agency for which their office is established to recognize and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse. The Data Analytics Program Records System, JUSTICE/OIG-006, facilitates OIG's performance of this statutory responsibility by maintained records as part of a data analytics (DA) program to assist with the performance of OIG audits, investigations, and reviews, and accommodate the requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), Public Law 113-101, 128 Stat. 1146.
The DA program will provide OIG: Timely insights from the data already stored in DOJ databases that OIG has legal authorization to access and maintain; the ability to monitor and analyze data for patterns and correlations that signal wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive activities impacting Department performance and operations; the ability to find, acquire, extract, manipulate, analyze, connect, and visualize data; the capability to manage vast amounts of data; the ability to identify significant information that can improve decision quality; and the ability to mitigate risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. The DA program will also allow the OIG to obtain technology to develop risk indicators that can analyze large volumes of data and help focus the OIG's efforts to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. OIG intends to use statistical and mathematical techniques to identify areas to conduct audits and identify activities that may indicate whether an investigation is warranted. The information maintained within JUSTICE/OIG-006 will be limited to only information that OIG has legal authorization to collect and maintain as part of its responsibility to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of Department programs and operations to recognize and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse.
In this rulemaking, OIG proposes to exempt JUSTICE/OIG-006 from certain provisions of the Privacy Act in order to avoid interference with the law enforcement responsibilities of OIG, as established in federal law and policy.
Additionally, as an administrative matter, this proposal will replace the current paragraphs (c) and (d) of 28 CFR 16.75, which currently exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act a previously rescinded OIG system of records notice (SORN), “Office of the Inspector General, Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOI/PA) Records,” JUSTICE/OIG-003, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. On June 4, 2001, at 77 FR 26580, the Department modified the Department-wide SORN, “Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Mandatory Declassification Review Records,” JUSTICE/DOJ-004, to consolidate all DOJ Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, Mandatory Declassification Review Request, and Administrative Appeal systems of records under one Department-wide SORN. Accordingly, the Department rescinded, among other SORNs, JUSTICE/OIG-003. OIG no longer requires exemption regulations for JUSTICE/OIG-003 and proposes to replace the existing exemption regulations with exemption regulations for JUSTICE/OIG-006.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, it is not subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule will only impact certain Privacy Act-protected records on individuals maintained by OIG in the above-mentioned system of records. A “record” for purposes of the Privacy Act is any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency (for example, the individual's education information, financial transactions, medical history, criminal history, or employment history) that contains the individual's name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. Such records are personal and generally do not apply to an individual's entrepreneurial capacity, subject to limited exceptions. As such, the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer certifies that this proposed rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-610.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires the Department to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. There are no current or new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000, as adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of information, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, the Department of Justice proposes to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(c) The Data Analytics Program Records System (JUSTICE/OIG-006) system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5) and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act. These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and/or (k). Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement process, and/or where it may be appropriate to permit individuals to contest the accuracy of the information collected,
(d) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3), the requirement that an accounting be made available to the named subject of a record, because release of disclosure accounting could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of an investigation and the fact that the individual is the subject of the investigation. Such a disclosure could also reveal investigative interest by not only OIG, but also by the recipient agency or component. Since release of such information to the subjects of an investigation would provide them with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation, release could result in the destruction of documentary evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, endangerment of the physical safety of confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel, the fabrication of testimony, flight of the subject from the area, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation. In addition, providing the individual an accounting for each disclosure could result in the release of properly classified information which would compromise the national defense or disrupt foreign policy.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification requirements, for the same reasons that justify exempting this system from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d), and similarly, from the accounting of disclosures provision of subsection (c)(3). The DOJ takes seriously its obligation to maintain accurate records despite its assertion of this exemption, and to the extent it, in its sole discretion, agrees to permit amendment or correction of DOJ records, it will share that information in appropriate cases.
(3) From subsection (d), the access and amendment provisions, because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation, of the existence of the investigation; of the nature and scope of the information and evidence obtained as to his activities; of the identity of confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel, and of information that may enable the subject to avoid detection or apprehension. These factors would present a serious impediment to effective law enforcement where they prevent the successful completion of the investigation, endanger the physical safety of confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel, and/or lead to the improper influencing of witnesses, the destruction of evidence, or the fabrication of testimony. In addition, granting access to such information could disclose security-sensitive or confidential business information or information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. Finally, access to the records could result in the release of properly classified information that would compromise the national defense or disrupt foreign policy. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated.
(4) From subsection (e)(1), because the application of this provision could impair investigations and interfere with the law enforcement responsibilities of the OIG for the following reasons:
(i) It is not possible to determine the relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of a civil, criminal or other law enforcement investigation, case, or matter, including investigations in which use is made of properly classified information. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing, and it is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.
(ii) During the course of any investigation, the OIG may obtain information concerning actual or potential violations of laws other than those within the scope of its jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law enforcement, the OIG should retain this information in accordance with applicable record retention procedures, as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and can provide valuable leads for Federal and other law enforcement agencies.
(iii) In interviewing individuals or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to an investigator
(5) From subsection (e)(2), because, in some instances, the application of this provision would present a serious impediment to law enforcement for the following reasons:
(i) The subject of an investigation would be placed on notice as to the existence of an investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection or apprehension, to improperly influence witnesses, to destroy evidence, or to fabricate testimony.
(ii) In certain circumstances the subject of an investigation cannot be required to provide information to investigators, and information relating to a subject's illegal acts, violations of rules of conduct, or any other misconduct must be obtained from other sources.
(iii) In any investigation it is necessary to obtain evidence from a variety of sources other than the subject of the investigation in order to verify the evidence necessary for successful litigation.
(6) From subsection (e)(3), because the application of this provision would provide the subject of an investigation with substantial information which could impede or compromise the investigation. Providing such notice to a subject of an investigation could interfere with an undercover investigation by revealing its existence, and could endanger the physical safety of confidential sources, witnesses, and investigators by revealing their identities.
(7) From subsection (e)(5), because the application of this provision would prevent the collection of any data not shown to be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete at the moment it is collected. In the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Material that may seem unrelated, irrelevant, or incomplete when collected may take on added meaning or significance as an investigation progresses. The restrictions of this provision could interfere with the preparation of a complete investigative report, and thereby impede effective law enforcement.
(8) From subsection (e)(8), because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on OIG and may alert the subjects of law enforcement investigations, who might be otherwise unaware, to the fact of those investigations. Such notice could also could reveal investigative techniques, procedures, or evidence.
(9) From subsection (g), to the extent that this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d), pursuant to subsections (j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) proposes to amend its rules of procedure for cases arising under the Contract Disputes Act, and for disputes between insurance companies and the Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency in which decisions of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation are brought before the Board under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. The Board's current rules were issued in 2008 and were last amended in 2011.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before May 29, 2018 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to CBCA Amendment 2018-01, BCA Case 2018-61-1, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. J. Gregory Parks, Chief Counsel, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, 1800 M Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036; at 202-606-8787; or email at
The Board was established within GSA by section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Public Law 109-163. Board members are administrative judges appointed by the Administrator of General Services under 41 U.S.C. 7105(b)(2). Among its other functions, the Board hears and decides contract disputes between Government contractors and most civilian Executive agencies under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109, and its implementing regulations, and disputes pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C. 1501
The Board's rules of procedure for Contract Disputes Act cases and Federal Crop Insurance Act cases were adopted in May 2008 (73 FR 26947) and were last amended in August 2011 (76 FR 50926). The proposed rule simplifies and modernizes access to the Board by establishing a preference for electronic filing, increases conformity between the Board's rules and the Federal Rules of
The proposed rule makes stylistic or other changes to Board Rules 1-35, 51-54, and 202. In addition, the Board will provide template forms for certain filings on its website rather than as an appendix to its rules. Proposed changes to the Board's rules of procedure include:
• Rule 4, Appeal file, is revised to make filing documentary evidence electronically in pdf format, rather than on paper, the default for Contract Disputes Act cases.
• Rule 6, governing pleadings, is revised to require the opposing party's consent to amend a pleading once without permission of the Board. This change is appropriate to practice under the Contract Disputes Act, as it will encourage opposing parties to raise any objections they may have to the Board's jurisdiction under the Act to hear new claims or defenses.
• Rule 8, Motions, is revised to, among other things, extend from 20 days to 30 days the time to file a brief in opposition to a substantive motion; set a deadline to respond to a procedural motion; and replace the term “summary relief” with the more common “summary judgment.”
• Rule 9 is reorganized to clarify that the record on the basis of which the Board will decide a case under the Contract Disputes Act consists of evidence and other materials that are not evidence.
• Rule 12, Stays and dismissals, is revised to eliminate a provision for suspending (rather than staying) a case, and a provision purporting to convert a voluntary dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice after 180 days. The provisions being eliminated are potentially misleading in light of the strict limits on the Board's jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act, and are rarely used.
• Several rules are revised to cross-reference and incorporate standards of corresponding Rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See proposed Rule 13(b) and (c), concerning the scope of discovery; Rule 14(b), Interrogatories; Rule 14(d), Requests for admission; Rule 14(f), Supplementing and correcting (discovery) responses; Rule 15(b), on the use of depositions; Rule 16(b), (e), and (f), on the issuance, service, and review of subpoenas; Rule 26, Reconsideration; and Rule 27, Relief from decision or order. These changes will allow the Board to adopt and apply case law applying the relevant Federal Rules, as well as any future amendments to those Federal Rules, without revising the Board's rules again. Practicioners before the Board are familiar with or can readily research current principles of Federal civil procedure.
• The appendix is deleted. It contained Forms 1 through 5, which litigants could elect to use as templates for certain filings. These nonmandatory forms are obsolete or will be posted on the Board's website.
• Rule 202 is revised to update cross-references to the rules of procedure for Contract Disputes Act cases.
GSA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 602
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The proposed rule is exempt from Congressional review under Public Law 104-121 because it relates solely to agency organization, procedure, and practice and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993, or E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, dated January 18, 2011. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
Executive Order 13771, dated February 3, 2017, sets deregulatory goals for agencies and requires the rescission of two regulations for each new regulation issued. This proposed rule is not a new regulation, but an update to the Board's existing rules of procedure, so Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure; Government procurement; Agriculture.
Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 6101 and 6102 as set forth below:
41 U.S.C. 7101-7109.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(1) The name, telephone number, and mailing and email addresses of the appellant and/or its attorney or authorized representative;
(2) The contract number;
(3) The name of the contracting officer who received or issued the claim, with that person's telephone number, mailing address, and email address;
(4) A copy of the claim with any certification; and
(5) A copy of the contracting officer's decision on the claim or a statement that the appeal is from a failure to issue a decision (“a deemed denial”).
(b)
(1) The name, telephone number, and mailing and email addresses of the petitioner and/or its attorney or authorized representative;
(2) The contract number;
(3) The name of the contracting officer who received the claim, with that person's telephone number, mailing address, and email address; and
(4) A copy of the claim with any certification.
(c)
(d)
(1) Under the CDA, a notice of appeal must be filed within 90 calendar days after the date of receipt of a contracting officer's decision on a claim.
(2) Alternatively, under the CDA, a contractor may appeal when a contracting officer has not issued a decision on a claim within the time allowed by the CDA or the time set by a tribunal acting on a petition.
(3) Under the CDA, a petition may be filed in the period between (a) receipt of notice from a contracting officer, within 60 days after the submission of a claim, that the contracting officer intends to issue a decision on the claim more than 60 days after its submission, and (b) the due date stated by the contracting officer.
(4) Under EAJA, an application must be filed within 30 days after the date that the decision in the underlying appeal becomes no longer subject to appeal.
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1) The contracting officer's decision on the claim;
(2) The contract, including all pertinent specifications, amendments, plans, drawings, and incorporated proposals or parts thereof;
(3) All correspondence between the parties relevant to the appeal;
(4) The claim with any certification;
(5) Relevant affidavits, witness statements, or transcripts of testimony taken before the appeal;
(6) All documents relied on by the contracting officer to decide the claim; and
(7) Relevant internal memoranda, reports, and notes.
(b)
(1) Unless otherwise ordered, parties shall file the appeal file and supplements thereto in an electronic storage medium (
(2) A party may efile an appeal file or a supplement thereto by permission of the Board.
(3) Appeal file exhibits shall be in .pdf format or will be rejected. The appeal file index and each exhibit shall be separate documents, without embedded documents.
(4) Appeal file exhibits shall be complete, legible, arranged in chronological order, numbered, and indexed. Parties shall avoid filing duplicative exhibits and shall number exhibits continuously and consecutively from one filing to the next, so that a complete appeal file consists of one set of consecutively numbered exhibits.
(5) Parties shall number the pages of each exhibit consecutively, unless an exhibit is already paginated in another logical manner.
(6) The appeal file index shall describe each exhibit by date and content.
(7) Parties may file documents
(c)
(1) Appeal files and supplements thereto may be filed on paper only by permission of the Board.
(2) Appeal file exhibits shall be complete, legible, arranged in chronological order, tabbed, and indexed. Parties shall avoid filing duplicative exhibits and shall number exhibits continuously and consecutively from one filing to the next, so a complete appeal file consists of one set of consecutively tabbed exhibits.
(3) Parties shall number the pages of each paper exhibit consecutively, unless an exhibit is already paginated in another logical manner.
(4) Parties shall file exhibits in 3-ring binders with spines no wider than 3 inches, labeled on the cover and spine with the name of the appeal, CBCA number, and tab numbers in each binder. Include in each binder the index of the entire filing.
(5) The appeal file index shall describe each exhibit by date and content.
(6) Parties shall separately file and index documents submitted
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
A party filing any document not submitted
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(1)
a. Rule 4 appeal file exhibits other than those to which an objection is sustained;
b. Other documents or parts thereof admitted as evidence;
c. Tangible things admitted as evidence;
d. Transcripts or recordings of testimony before the Board; and
e. Factual stipulations and factual admissions.
(2)
a. The notice of appeal, petition, or application;
b. The complaint, answer, and amendments thereto;
c. Motions and briefs on motions;
d. Other briefs;
e. Demonstrative hearing exhibits; and
f. Anything else the Board may expressly admit or take notice of.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
a. The party submits the document to explain a discovery dispute;
b. The Board denies a motion for protective order, and the movant asks that the record include a document that the party would have used in the case with a protective order, for possible later review of the Board's denial; or
c. Good cause exists to find that
(3)
(e)
The Board may in its discretion receive any evidence to which no party objects. In ruling on evidentiary objections, the Board is guided but not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence, except that the Board generally admits hearsay unless the Board finds it unreliable.
The Board may order a conference of the parties for any purpose. Conferences are usually telephonic and are rarely recorded or transcribed. No one may record a conference by any means without Board approval. If the Board issues a memorandum or order memorializing a conference, a party has 5 days from receipt of the memorandum or order to object in writing to the memorialization.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The Board arranges transcription of hearings, other than hearings under the small claims procedure of Rule 52. The Board may, but generally does not, arrange transcription of conferences or other proceedings. No one may record or transcribe a Board proceeding without the Board's permission. The Board may order or acknowledge corrections to an official transcript. Each party is responsible for obtaining its own copy of a transcript.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) The Board is satisfied that it has jurisdiction, and
(2) The stipulation states that no party will seek reconsideration of, seek relief from, or appeal the Board's decision.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Specify the applicant, appeal, and amount sought;
(2) Explain why the applicant is legally eligible for an award;
(3) Provide a schedule of fees and expenses with supporting documentation;
(4) Be signed by the applicant or a person appearing for the applicant, with a declaration under penalty of perjury that the information in the application is correct;
(5) Provide evidence of the applicant's small business status or net worth; and
(6) Justify any request for attorney fees exceeding the statutory rate.
(d)
(1) Within 30 days after receiving an application, the respondent may file an answer with any objections to the award requested, supported by facts and legal analysis.
(2) The Board may order further proceedings if necessary for a full and fair resolution of issues arising from an application.
(e)
When permitted by law, Board awards under contracts may be paid from the permanent indefinite judgment fund under 31 U.S.C. 1304 and 31 CFR part 256. An EAJA award is paid from funds of the respondent.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
If a Court remands a case to the Board for further proceedings, each party shall, within 30 days of receipt of the appellate mandate, recommend procedures to comply with the remand order. The Board will then issue an order on further proceedings.
No member of the Board or of the Board's staff will communicate with a party about any material issue in a case outside of the presence of the other party, and no one shall attempt such communications on behalf of a party. This rule does not bar such communications about the Board's administrative functions or procedures.
(a)
(b)
(1) Taking the facts pertaining to the matter in dispute to be established for the purpose of the case in accordance with the contention of the party who is not at fault;
(2) Forbidding the challenge of the accuracy of any evidence;
(3) Refusing to allow the party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses;
(4) Prohibiting the party from introducing into evidence designated claims or defenses;
(5) Striking pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(6) Dismissing the case or any part thereof;
(7) Enforcing the protective order and disciplining individuals subject to such order for violation thereof, including disqualifying a party's representative, attorney, expert, or consultant from further participation in the case;
(8) Drawing evidentiary inferences adverse to the party; or
(9) Imposing such other sanctions as the Board deems appropriate.
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
The seal of the Board is a circular logo with “Civilian Board of Contract Appeals” on the outer margin. The seal is a means of authenticating records, notices, orders, dismissals, opinions, subpoenas, and certificates issued by the Board.
An appellant in an eligible case may elect the small claims procedure under Rule 52 or the accelerated procedure under Rule 53. Parties may jointly elect alternative dispute resolution under Rule 54.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
7 U.S.C. 1501
These procedures govern the Board's resolution of disputes between insurance companies and the Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency (RMA) involving actions of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). Prior to the creation of this Board, the Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals resolved this variety of dispute pursuant to statute, 7 U.S.C. 1501
The rules of procedure for these cases are the same as the rules of procedure for Contract Disputes Act appeals, with these exceptions:
(a)
(1) The term “appeal” means a dispute between an insurance company that is a party to a Standard Reinsurance Agreement (or other reinsurance agreement) and the RMA, and the term “appellant” means the insurance company filing an appeal.
(2) A notice of appeal is filed upon its receipt by the Office of the Clerk of the Board, not when it is mailed.
(3) The terms “petition” and “petitioner” do not apply to FCIC cases.
(b)
(1) Rule 2(a) is replaced with the following for FCIC cases: A notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall be signed by the appellant or by the appellant's attorney or authorized representative. If the appeal is from a determination by the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services regarding an action alleged not to be in accordance with the provisions of a Standard Reinsurance Agreement (or other reinsurance agreement), or if the appeal is from a determination by the Deputy Administrator of Compliance concerning a determination regarding a compliance matter, the notice of appeal should describe the determination in enough detail to enable the Board to differentiate that decision from any other; the appellant can satisfy this requirement by attaching to the notice of appeal a copy of the Deputy Administrator's determination. If an appeal is taken from the failure of the Deputy Administrator to make a timely determination, the notice of appeal should describe in detail the matter that the Deputy Administrator has failed to determine; the appellant can satisfy this requirement by attaching to the notice of appeal a copy of the written request for a determination it sent to the Deputy Administrator.
(2) In Rule 2(a), the references to “contracting officer” are references to “Deputy Administrator.”
(3) Rule 2(b) does not apply to FCIC cases.
(4) In Rule 2(d)(1), an appeal from a determination of a Deputy Administrator shall be filed no later than 90 calendar days after the date the appellant receives that determination. The Board is authorized to resolve only those appeals that are timely filed.
(5) In Rule 2(d)(2), an appeal may be filed with the Board if the Deputy Administrator fails or refuses to issue a determination within 90 days after the appellant submits a request for a determination.
(c)
(1) In Rule 4, the references to “contracting officer” are references to “Deputy Administrator.”
(2) In Rule 4(a), paragraphs (1) through (7), describing materials included in the appeal file, are replaced by the following:
(i) The determination of the Deputy Administrator that is the subject of the dispute;
(ii) The reinsurance agreement (with amendments or modifications) at issue in the dispute;
(iii) Pertinent correspondence between the parties that is relevant to the dispute, including prior administrative determinations and related submissions;
(iv) Documents and other tangible materials on which the Deputy Administrator relied in making the underlying determination; and
(v) Any additional material pertinent to the authority of the Board or the resolution of the dispute.
(3) The following subsection is added to Rule 4: Media on which appeal file is to be submitted. All appeal file submissions, including the index, shall be submitted in two forms: paper and in a text or .pdf format submitted on a compact disk. Each compact disk shall be labeled with the name and docket number of the case. The judge may delay the submission of the compact disk copy of the appeal file until the close of the evidentiary record.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(j)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that we have determined that the State of Chihuahua, excluding the municipalities of Guadalupe y Calvo and Morelos, is free from fever ticks. Based on an evaluation of the fever tick status of this region, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, the Administrator has determined that this region is free from fever ticks and that ruminants imported from the region present a low risk of exposing ruminants in the United States to fever ticks.
This change in fever tick status will be recognized on April 27, 2018.
Dr. Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, birds, and poultry into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of part 93 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436, referred to below as the regulations) governs the importation of ruminants; within the regulations, §§ 93.424 through 93.429 specifically address the importation of ruminants from Mexico into the United States.
The regulations in paragraph (b)(1) of § 93.427 contain conditions for the importation of ruminants from regions of Mexico that we consider free from the
The regulations in 9 CFR 92.2 contain requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region or for the approval of the export of a particular type of animal or animal product to the United States from a foreign region. If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in support of the request, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) believes the request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available for public comment through a notice published in the
In accordance with that process, Mexico asked APHIS to recognize the State of Chihuahua, except the municipalities of Guadalupe y Calvo and Morelos, as a region free from fever ticks. In response to this request, we prepared an evaluation of the fever tick status of this region. The evaluation concluded that the State of Chihuahua, excluding the municipalities of Guadalupe y Calvo and Morelos, is free from fever ticks, and that ruminants imported from the region pose a low risk of exposing ruminants within the United States to fever ticks.
On May 12, 2016, we published in the
Therefore, based on the findings of our evaluation and the absence of comments that would lead us to reconsider those findings, we are announcing our determination to add the State of Chihuahua, excluding the municipalities of Guadalupe y Calvo and Morelos, to the list of regions of Mexico declared free from fever ticks. This list is available on the APHIS website at
7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of March 2018.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the AP Loblolly Pine Removal and Restoration Project.
The USDA Forest Service is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the AP Loblolly Pine Removal and Restoration Project. The purpose of this project is to restore native vegetation typical of the Southern Appalachian Mountains in areas that were planted to non-native loblolly pine plantations in the 1970s. A number of vegetative treatments have been implemented since the Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed and the
Scoping comments for this supplement must be received by April 27, 2018. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) is expected in June 2018, and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) is expected in October 2018.
Send written comments to USDA Forest Service, 112 Andrew Pickens Circle, Mountain Rest, South Carolina 29664. Comments may also be sent via email to
Robbie Sitzlar (
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
In May 2013, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the AP Loblolly Pine Removal and Restoration Project (2013 FEIS) was completed and a Record of Decision (2013 ROD) was signed by the Andrew Pickens District Ranger on May 22, 2013. The 2013 FEIS and 2013 ROD along with other supporting documents are available at:
Additions to the purpose and need for action are based on project implementation monitoring and field reviews, as described below.
1. Field reviews have identified 1,330 acres of new loblolly stands that were not addressed in the 2013 FEIS. These stands need to be restored to native forest species appropriate for the ecological zone and loblolly pine (a non-native species) needs to be eliminated as a long term seed source.
2. Since the 2013 ROD was signed, 902 acres of loblolly stands have become commercially viable and/or have road access to them that was not available at the time of the original decision. There is a need to recover any economic value in trees to be harvested prior to restoration of native forest vegetation.
3. As a non-native species in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, loblolly pine has proven to be an aggressive competitor and seed stored in the soil germinates prolifically following harvest and hampers establishment of native forest vegetation. The herbicides currently approved for use have proven effective for hardwood control but ineffective at controlling loblolly pine regeneration. There is a need to include both prescribed burning and herbicides as site preparation treatments that are more effective at controlling loblolly pine regeneration. This would facilitate restoration of desirable native pine and hardwood species on appropriate ecological types.
4. Implementation monitoring indicates that undesirable understory hardwoods (such as red maple, sweetgum, blackgum, rhododendron, and mountain laurel) are well-established in some stands. The lack of periodic fire has allowed these species to become dominant and persistent in the understory at levels not typical for their ecological zone. In addition, past Southern pine beetle activity that killed portions of the overstory loblolly pine has also resulted in these hardwood species gaining dominance of the site at the exclusion of other desirable species such as oaks, hickories, and native pines. Loblolly pine regeneration is also present and needs to be eliminated from the stand. There is a need to treat undesirable hardwood and loblolly pine understories prior to timber harvest in some areas to facilitate reestablishment of native forest vegetation.
5. Ecological classification mapping for the district has been updated since the 2013 ROD was signed. This new information has been used to help identify potentially suitable areas for woodland management. Also, establishment of woodland areas has proven to be more labor intensive than was originally thought. There is a need to reduce the total number of acres managed as woodlands and to use ecological mapping to identify areas suitable for woodland management. This would result in some woodland areas being changed to regeneration harvest and some new areas selected for woodland management. In some cases, stands selected for woodland management contain desirable hardwood species such as oak and hickory but lack sufficient native pine species typical of the ecological zone. Woodland areas should contain a variety of ecologically suitable species of native pines (that include pitch pine, Table Mountain pine and shortleaf pine) and hardwoods with an open overstory and an understory dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Woodland restoration needs to include native pine species suitable to the ecological zone.
6. Implementation monitoring has shown the need to drop mitigation measure #1 from the 2013 FEIS. This mitigation measure provides for staggering some harvest units in identified small sub-watersheds to reduce timber harvesting effects on water quality. However, this mitigation measure has proven difficult to implement and has caused additional adverse environmental effects. Staggering harvest units has resulted in additional soil disturbance from roads. Instead of using a system road once during a timber sale and then putting it back into storage and allowing it to revegetate, another entry is needed a few years later resulting in additional disturbance in the watershed. In addition, there is an increased risk of loblolly pine seeding into the newly restored unit from the adjacent uncut stand.
7. Mitigation measure # 6c would be revised to permit log trucks to cross some perennial and intermittent streams using other methods (such as low-water crossings) in addition to temporary bridges. Implementation monitoring indicates that some crossings make it impracticable to use a temporary bridge without placing fill material on the banks of the stream. This fill material has the potential to be a sediment source once the temporary bridge is removed. The revised mitigation would require consultation with Forest Service resource specialists prior to proceeding with other crossing methods. The intent is to choose the best form of crossing to protect soil and water resources.
8. A mitigation measures would be added to protect residual trees during site preparation prescribed burn treatments and another mitigation measure would be added to require hand fireline construction near streams.
The proposed action includes adding about 1,330 acres of new loblolly stand treatments, modifying loblolly treatments on 902 acres from pre-commercial to commercial treatments, reducing the acres to be managed as woodlands, adding planting of native pines in woodlands, adding two herbicides (that are already approved for
Mitigation measure # 6c would be revised to allow log trucks to cross perennial and intermittent streams using other methods (low-water crossing) in addition to temporary bridges as deemed practicable and effective at resource protection with approval from Forest Service specialists. Crossings would adhere to BMPs and the Forest Plan.
A new mitigation measure would be added to protect residual trees in harvest units during prescribed burn activities. Protection measures could include manual and mechanical removal of logging slash from under the drip-line to the base of residual trees. A new mitigation measure would be added to protect streams by requiring hand fireline construction within 100 feet of streams when deemed necessary during prescribed burning.
Andrew Pickens District Ranger, Sumter National Forest
Whether or not to implement the Proposed Action or continue to implement the 2013 ROD.
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the SEIS. We are inviting you to submit comments to help refine the proposed action. In addition, the Responsible Official is currently preparing an environmental analysis of the proposed action and needs your assistance to better identify issues, concerns and opportunities. Pursuant to 36 CFR 218.7(a)(2), this proposed project implements the land management plan and is subject to 36 CFR 218 subparts A and B.
Specific written comments as defined by § 218.2 should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider. It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to insure that their comments are received in a timely manner.
A notice and comment period will be provided at a future date (§ 218.24). Only those that respond to this request for comments will remain on the mailing list for this project.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on these proposed actions and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces that it is accepting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees Program (the Broadband Program). RUS will publish on its website
Since the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), RUS has only accepted applications according to discrete application windows as identified in notices published in the
Applications will be processed on a first come, first served basis. Every ninety (90) days, RUS will conduct an evaluation of the submitted applications. During the evaluation period, applications will be ranked based on the percentage of unserved households that the applicant proposes to serve. RUS anticipates that it will conduct at least two evaluation periods for FY 2018. Because the Agency will receive applications throughout the fiscal year, subsequent evaluation periods can alter the ranking of applications.
In addition to announcing its acceptance of FY 2018 applications, RUS revises the minimum and maximum amounts for broadband loans for the fiscal year.
Applications under this NOSA will be accepted immediately through September 30, 2018. RUS will process loan applications as they are received.
Applications can only be submitted online through the RD Apply website at
For further information contact Shawn Arner, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Loan Origination and Approval Division, Rural Utilities Service, Room 2844, STOP 1597, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1597, Telephone: (202) 720-0800, or email:
The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (the “Broadband Program”) is authorized by the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901
During FY 2018, loans will be made available for the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment that will provide service at the broadband lending speed in eligible rural areas. Applications are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1738.
RUS offers pre-application assistance, in which National Office staff and the assigned General Field Representative review the draft application, provide detailed comments, and identify areas where an application is not meeting eligibility requirements for funding. The online application system allows RUS staff to assist an applicant with every part of an application as it is being developed. Once the application is formally submitted, the online system will timestamp the submitted version and establish the application's place in the processing queue.
Based on the order in which the applications are received, RUS will review the application for completeness. The applicant may be asked for additional information to clarify aspects of an otherwise complete application or to assist the Agency in the underwriting process. If the application is determined to be complete, RUS will review the package for eligibility and technical and financial feasibility, in accordance with 7 CFR 1738. If an application is ultimately found to be incomplete or inadequate, a detailed explanation will be provided to the applicant.
To further assist in the preparation of applications, an application guide is available online at:
Loans under this authority will not be made for less than $100,000. The maximum loan amount that will be considered for FY 2018 is $25,000,000.
The regulation for the Broadband Program requires that certain definitions affecting eligibility be revised and published from time to time by the Agency in the
Applications for FY 2018 will be accepted from the publication date of this NOSA through September 30, 2018. Although review of applications will begin as they are submitted, all applications will be evaluated and ranked every 90 days based on the percentage of unserved households in the proposed funded service area. Subject to available funding, eligible applications that propose to serve a higher percentage of unserved households will receive funding offers before other eligible applications that propose to serve a lower percentage of unserved households. The amount available will be published on the Agency web page once all budgetary allocations have been completed.
Loan offers are limited to the funds available at the time of the Agency's decision to approve an application.
Applications will not be accepted after September 30, 2018, until a new application opportunity has been opened with the publication of an additional NOSA in the
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with Broadband loans, as covered in this NOSA, have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0572-0130.
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
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The American Community Survey (ACS) is one of the Department of Commerce's most valuable data products, used extensively by businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local governments, and many federal agencies. In conducting this survey, the Census Bureau's top priority is respecting the time and privacy of the people providing information while preserving its value to the public.
The Census Bureau has a robust research program for the ACS focused on enhancing quality of the respondent experience, survey operations, and data. In 2017, the Census Bureau conducted the 2017 Pressure Seal Mailing Materials Test to evaluate the impact on self-response and cost of replacing letters and postcards in the American
The content of the proposed 2019 ACS questionnaire and data collection instruments for both Housing Unit and Group Quarters operations reflect changes to content and instructions that were proposed primarily as a result of the 2016 ACS Content Test, but also as a result of interagency consultation. The 2019 content changes cover several topics discussed below.
The rise of cell phone and smartphone usage, and other complex and varied telephone services and equipment, has changed how people view and use telephones in a household. Research also suggests that some respondents, or in some cases interviewers, may not fully understand the current wording of the survey question on Telephone Service, the additional instructions that accompany the question, or what the question is intending to capture. To make the intent of the telephone service question easier to understand by respondents and interviewers, the question was made a stand-alone question and additional instructions are provided on the types of telephones and equipment respondents should include when answering the question. Currently, telephone service is asked as part of a broader question on housing characteristics.
A question on Health Insurance Premiums and Subsidies will be introduced to the ACS immediately following the current question on health insurance coverage. The question on premiums and subsidies asks if a person pays a health insurance premium, and if so, if he or she received a subsidy to help pay the premium. This question will provide more accurate information about coverage categories than available from the existing ACS question on current coverage alone. These data will enhance the ability of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the states to administer Medicaid, CHIP, and the exchanges, and monitor private insurance coverage.
In addition, one response option for the health insurance question will be changed as a result of consultation with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In July 2017, the VA contacted the Census Bureau and requested a change to the VA response option on the health insurance question. The proposed change is to ensure the accuracy of the estimates of VA health insurance coverage. The VA response option for the health insurance question will be truncated from “VA (including those who have ever used or enrolled for VA health care)” to “VA (including those who have enrolled for VA health care).” This information is new since the publication of the 60-day
Changes to the Commute Mode question were motivated by changes in public transportation infrastructure across the United States, particularly the increased prevalence of light rail systems and the need to update and clarify the terminology used to refer to commute modes that appear as categories on the ACS. To improve the Commute Mode question, some of the public transportation modes were modified. The category “Streetcar or trolley car” was changed to “Light rail, street car, or trolley,” “Subway or elevated” was changed to “Subway or Elevated Rail,” and “Railroad” was changed to “Long-distance train or commuter rail.” These three rail-related categories were also slightly reordered so that “Subway or elevated rail,” the most prevalent rail mode, is listed first. The phrase “trolley bus” was dropped and the phrase “work at home” was changed to “work from home.” The subheading of instructions was simplified to read “Mark ONE box for the method of transportation used for most of the distance.” The Time of Departure question has historically raised concerns about privacy because of the reference to the time a person leaves home. To phrase the question in a less intrusive way, the question was changed to ask what time the person's trip to work began and to remove the word “home.”
The changes to the question on the number of weeks worked were made to allow the Census Bureau to provide high-quality, continuous measures for the number of weeks worked, such as means, medians, and aggregates. In addition, the changes enable additional specificity for weeks worked, particularly with hours worked, income, and occupation. Part A of the question regarding the time period of interest was rephrased from working “50 or more weeks” to “EVERY week” and additional information is provided in the second sentence. The original instruction of “Count paid time off as work” was changed to “Count paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military service as work.” For part B of the question, the response option was changed to a write-in response, the reference period (“the PAST 12 MONTHS”) is repeated, and new guidance clarifies what to count as work.
Changes to the Class of Worker question improve overall question clarity, refine the definition of unpaid family workers, explicitly define a category for Active Duty military, improve question wording and categories, and improve the layout of the question. Response categories were grouped under three general headings. “Active Duty” was added as one of the response categories in the government section, and the “Active Duty” checkbox was dropped from the Employer Name question. Question and response category wording were revised for clarity. To signal that all six employment characteristics questions refer to the same job (including industry and occupation), the series was renumbered from separate questions to a single series with sub-questions. Lastly, the instructional text and heading for the series immediately preceding Class of Worker was simplified.
Ongoing research of the Industry and Occupation question write-in responses has demonstrated that the questions were unclear and confusing to respondents, who were unable to answer at all or answer with sufficient clarity to provide useful data. To increase clarity and improve occupational specificity, these questions were revised to include new and consistent examples, in terms of content and length, and include modified question wording. The number of characters for write-in responses about “Job Duties” was expanded from 60 to 100 characters.
Over the last 40 years, defined contribution retirement plans have become increasingly common while defined benefit plans (such as pensions) have become less so. Federal surveys have lagged in addressing these newer forms of retirement income and subsequently underreport retirement income. The Retirement, Survivor, and Disability Income question was changed to improve income reporting, increase item response rates, reduce reporting errors, and update questions on retirement income and the income generated from retirement accounts and all other assets in order to better measure retirement income data. The question was expanded to ask about
For several years, the Census Bureau has been testing revised relationship questions to improve the estimates of coupled households. The 1990 Census first introduced “Unmarried partner” as a response category to the Relationship to Householder question. The 2000 and 2010 Censuses built upon this work, changing the processing of responses to the Relationship question to more accurately represent same-sex couples. The Census Bureau discovered a statistical error in the 2010 Census data that resulted from opposite-sex couples mismarking their sex. This error had the potential to inflate the estimates of same-sex, married couple households. The Census Bureau released a set of modified state-level, same-sex household estimates from the 2010 Census because of this error, and also began new research efforts to improve the Relationship question.
The Relationship question has been revised to improve measurement of same-sex couples. The existing “Husband or wife” and “Unmarried partner” response categories were each split into two versions: “Opposite-sex husband/wife/spouse,” “Opposite-sex unmarried partner,” “Same-sex husband/wife/spouse,” and “Same-sex unmarried partner.” Additionally, the two unmarried partner categories were moved from near the end of the list of response options to near the beginning, immediately after the husband/wife/spouse options. An automated relationship/sex consistency check will be included in electronic instruments to provide respondents an opportunity to change their sex or relationship responses when there is an inconsistency in the reported sex of an individual and whether their relationship was reported as “Opposite-sex” or “Same-sex” husband/wife/spouse or unmarried partner. This check reduces the inconsistency in responses and improves the quality of the relationship data. The category “Roomer or boarder” has been dropped from the Relationship question.
The 2016 ACS Content Test served as an operational test of the race and ethnicity questions that were previously tested on the 2015 National Content Test (NCT). Recommendations about the race and ethnicity questions adopted for the 2020 Census and production ACS were based on the results of the census tests and decisions made in consultation with OMB; the 2016 ACS Content Test provided an opportunity to test data collection modes and examine other data not available in the 2015 NCT. The 2016 ACS Content Test evaluated interviewer-administered collection modes, assessed the race and ethnicity questions against demographic and socioeconomic data, and separately compared the race and ethnicity results to data from the ancestry question. In 2020 or later, the ACS will adopt the final version of the race and Hispanic origin questions that are implemented for the 2020 Census.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). In addition, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2316.
Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since the
The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
During the course of this investigation, Commerce received scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice at Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document, and is on file electronically
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in November 2017, we verified the sales and cost information reported by POSCO for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by POSCO.
Based on our analysis of comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for POSCO. For a discussion of these changes,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero,
For the
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of wire rod from Korea, as described in Appendix I to this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 31, 2017, the date of publication in the
Furthermore, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise. Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which
The instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination of sales at LTFV and final negative determination of critical circumstances for Korea. Because Commerce's final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of wire rod from Korea no later than 45 days after this final determination, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded or cancelled. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that carbon and alloy wire rod (wire rod) from Italy is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Victoria Cho or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 and (202) 482-6312, respectively.
On October 31, 2017, Commerce published the
The scope of the investigation covers wire rod from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the
In September 2017, we received scope case and rebuttal briefs. On November 20, 2017, we issued the Final Scope Decision Memorandum in response to these comments in which we did not change the scope of this investigation.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) in November and December 2017, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Ferriere Nord S.p.A. (Ferriere Nord) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Ferriere Nord.
Antidumping Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Wire Rod from Italy,” dated January 10, 2018.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Ferriere Nord. For a discussion of these changes,
In the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or
The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of wire rod from Italy, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 31, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the
Further, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of wire rod from Italy no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS may also be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from the Netherlands for the period March 22, 2016, through September 30, 2017.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477.
On October 4, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products (HR Steel) from the Netherlands for the period of review (POR) March 22, 2016, through September 30, 2017.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” The petitioners withdrew their request for review within the 90-day time limit. Because we received no other requests for review of TSIJ, and no other requests for the review of the order on HR Steel from the Netherlands, we are rescinding the administrative review of the order in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of HR Steel products from the Netherlands during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Spain is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). In addition, we determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to certain imports of the subject merchandise. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Davina Friedmann or Chelsey Simonovich, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0698 and (202) 482-1979, respectively.
On October 31, 2017, Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the
In September 2017, we received scope case and rebuttal briefs. On November 20, 2017, we issued the Final Scope Decision Memorandum in response to the comments received.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in November and December 2017, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Global Steel Wire S.A. (GSW), CELSA Atlantic S.A., and Companía Española de Laminación (collectively, CELSA) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by CELSA.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for CELSA. For a discussion of these changes,
In the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
The final weighted-average dumping
In accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce continues to find that critical circumstances do not exist for CELSA and all-other companies, but do exist for AME, for the reasons described in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis,
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will
Further, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins as shown above.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of wire rod from Spain sold in the United States at LTFV no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS may also be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the final remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (China), covering the period of March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. (Baoding Mantong).
Applicable [March 22, 2018].
Edythe Artman or Brian Davis, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
On October 15, 2015, Commerce published the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise with respect to Baoding Mantong.
As Baoding Mantong's cash deposit rate has not been subject to subsequent administrative reviews, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP adjusting the rate for Baoding Mantong to zero percent, effective March 22, 2018.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that carton-closing staples from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The final dumping margin of sales at LTFV is shown in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
On November 3, 2017, Commerce published in the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
The products covered by this investigation are carton-closing staples from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
For the final determination, Commerce continues to rely upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences based on adverse facts available (AFA), for the China-wide entity, including Zhejiang Best Nail Industrial Co., Ltd. (Best Nail), pursuant to sections 776(a)-(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Furthermore, as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce continues to find, pursuant to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, that the mandatory respondent, Shanghai Yueda Nails Co., Ltd., is affiliated with Qiushan Printing Machinery Co., Ltd., Fastnail Products Limited, and Wuhan FOPO Trading Co., Ltd., and that these companies should be treated as a single entity pursuant 19 CFR 351.401(f), hereinafter referred to as Yueda Group. However, for the final determination, we find that another company, China Dinghao Co., Limited (Dinghao), is affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33)(G) of the Act, and should, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(iii), also be treated as part of this single entity, pursuant to our verification of the Yueda Group. Based on Commerce's verification of the Yueda Group, we continue to find it entitled to a separate rate, but determine it appropriate to base Yueda Group's estimated dumping margin on AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a)-(b) of the Act.
For the final determination, we continue to find, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, that the China-wide entity, which includes certain Chinese exporters and/or producers
In selecting the AFA rate for Yueda Group and the China-wide entity, Commerce's practice is to select a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated.
For the final determination, we continue to find that Hangzhou Huayu Machinery Co., Ltd. and The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. are entitled to a separate rate, as noted below. In the
In the
Commerce determines that carton-closing staples from China are being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, and that the following dumping margins exist:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of carton-closing staples from China, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 3, 2017, the date of publication in the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we intend to notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. As Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of carton-closing staples from China, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of carton-closing staples from China. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all securities posted
This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We intend to issue and publish this determination in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The scope of this investigation is carton-closing staples. Carton-closing staples may be manufactured from carbon, alloy, or stainless steel wire, and are included in the scope of the investigation regardless of whether they are uncoated or coated, regardless of the type of coating.
Carton-closing staples are generally made to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification ASTM D1974/D1974M-16, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all carton-closing staples meeting the scope description are included in the scope. Carton-closing staples include stick staple products, often referred to as staple strips, and roll staple products, often referred to as coils. Stick staples are lightly cemented or lacquered together to facilitate handling and loading into stapling machines. Roll staples are taped together along their crowns. Carton-closing staples are covered regardless of whether they are imported in stick form or roll form.
Carton-closing staples vary by the size of the wire, the width of the crown, and the length of the leg. The nominal leg length ranges from 0.4095 inch to 1.375 inches and the nominal crown width ranges from 1.125 inches to 1.375 inches. The size of the wire used in the production of carton-closing staples varies from 0.029 to 0.064 inch (nominal thickness) by 0.064 to 0.100 inch (nominal width).
Carton-closing staples subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 8305.20.00.00 and 7317.00.65.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to exporters and producers of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) for the period of investigation (POI), January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Justin Neuman or Omar Qureshi, 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) 482-0486 or (202) 482-5307, respectively.
On September 5, 2017, Commerce published its affirmative
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now March 19, 2018.
The scope of the investigation covers wire rod from Turkey. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the
In September 2017, we received scope case and rebuttal briefs. On November 20, 2017, we issued the Final Scope Decision Memorandum in response to the comments received.
Commerce is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy (
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Commerce conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of Turkey, Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istih (Habas), and Icdas Celik Eberji Tersane Ve Ulasim San (Icdas) between January 18, and February 9, 2018.
If necessary information is not available on the record, or an interested party withholds information, fails to provide requested information in a timely manner, significantly impedes a proceeding by not providing information, or information provided cannot be verified, Commerce will apply facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on facts available and, because certain respondents did not cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to the Commerce's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations since the
In the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for each exporter/producer of the subject merchandise individually investigated,
In this investigation, Commerce calculated individual countervailable subsidy rates for Habas and Icdas that are not zero,
The final subsidy rates are as follows:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
The Department continues to find that critical circumstances exist for the all others companies and therefore we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the all others companies entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 7, 2017, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative countervailing duty determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of wire rod from Turkey, no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a countervailing duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Italy. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. For information on the estimated subsidy rates,
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813.
On September 5, 2017, Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We invited parties to comment on Commerce's Preliminary Scope Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy (
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January 2018, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by Ferriere Nord S.p.A. and the Government of Italy.
We issued verification reports on February 8, 2018.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations since the
For purposes of this final determination, we relied on facts available, and because mandatory respondent Ferriera Valsider S.p.A. (Ferriera Valsider) did not act to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated.
In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under
Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated the “all-others” rate using the subsidy rate of Ferriere Nord, the only mandatory respondent not receiving a subsidy rate based totally on section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Ferriera Valsider. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero,
We intend
As a result of our affirmative
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that stainless steel flanges from People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Trenton Duncan or 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) 482-3539 or (202) 482-1491, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on September 11, 2017.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are stainless steel flanges from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation see Appendix I to this notice.
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for mandatory respondent, Shanxi Guanjiaying Flange Forging Group Co., Ltd (GJY). Hydro-Fluids Controls Limited (HFC), Songhai Flange Manufacturing Co., Ltd (Songhai), and Dongtai QB Stainless Steel Co., Ltd (Dongtai) were also selected as mandatory respondents, however, these companies withdrew from participation in this investigation and did not respond to our requests for information. Therefore, HFC, Songhai, and Dongtai have not demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate and Commerce considers them to be part of the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
As described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in this preliminary determination, no adjustments pursuant to section 777A(f) and 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act are being made for cash deposit purposes.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied AFA to the individually examined company participating in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.
Because the mandatory respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce and Commerce preliminarily determines each of the mandatory respondents to have been uncooperative, verification will not be conducted.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, 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. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1) provide that Commerce will issue the final determination within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 75 days after the signature date of this preliminary determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The term “stainless steel” used in this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements.
Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone some machining processes.
The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A351.
The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges.
Merchandise subject to the investigation is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that stainless steel flanges from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Courtney Canales, Julia Hancock, or Jerry Huang, 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) 482-4997, (202) 482-1394, or (202) 482-4047, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on September 11, 2017.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is stainless steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices also have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. In addition,
In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for Chandan Steel, the Bebitz/Viraj single entity, and the Echjay single entity, and all other producers and exporters. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis,
Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on adverse facts available to the Bebitz/Viraj single entity and the Echjay single entity. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As noted above, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced or exported by Chandan, Bebitz/Viraj single entity, Echjay single entity, and all-others. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of shipments of subject merchandise from the producer(s) or exporter(s) identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.
Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce preliminarily made an affirmative
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting estimated antidumping duty cash deposits unadjusted for countervailed export subsidies at the time that the provisional CVD measures expire.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon for Chandan in making its final determination. However, because the Bebitz/Viraj single entity and the Echjay single entity did not provide information requested by Commerce, and Commerce preliminarily determines that these examined respondents to have been uncooperative within the meaing of section 776(b) of the Act, we will not conduct verification of the Bebitz/Viraj single entity and the Echjay single entity.
Case briefs or other written comments on Chandan may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report on Chandan is issued in this investigation. For issues related to the Bebitz/Viraj single entity and the Echjay single entity, because we are not verifying these companies, case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 50 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless Commerce alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, 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. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On February 12 and 21, 2018, the Bebitz/Viraj single entity and the Echjay single entity requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter(s) account(s) for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The term “stainless steel” used in this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements.
Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone some machining processes.
The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A351.
The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges.
Merchandise subject to the investigation is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Turkey is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value during the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Ryan Mullen or Ian Hamilton, 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) 482-5260 and (202) 482-4798, respectively.
On October 31, 2017, Commerce published the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now March 19, 2018.
The scope of the investigation covers wire rod from Turkey. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the
In September 2017, we received scope case and rebuttal briefs. On November 20, 2017, we issued the Final Scope Decision Memorandum in response to the comments received.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) in November 2017 and February 2018, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Icdas) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Habas and Icdas.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Habas and Icdas. For a discussion of these changes,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or
In this investigation, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Habas and Icdas that are not zero,
For the
The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of public announcement of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of wire rod from Turkey, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 31, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the
Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. The adjusted cash deposit rate may be found in the Final Determination section above.
Further, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of wire rod from Turkey no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administrative, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on welded stainless pressure pipe (WSPP) from India covering the period March 11, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Keith A. Haynes or Laurel LaCivita at AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139 or (202) 482-4243, respectively.
On January 11, 2018, based on a timely request by Sunrise Stainless Private Limited, Sun Mark Stainless Pvt. Ltd., and Shah Foils Ltd. (collectively, Sunrise Group), and Hindustan Inox Ltd., Commerce published in the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Sunrise Group and Hindustan Inox Ltd. withdrew their respective review requests by the 90-day deadline, and no other parties requested an administrative review of this order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on WSPP from India covering the period March 11, 2016, to December 31, 2016, in its entirety.
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Because Commerce is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertains shall be assessed countervailing duties that are equal to the cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the publication of this notice in the
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, 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.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from the United Kingdom is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). In addition, we determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Alice Maldonado, 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) 482-4682.
On October 31, 2017, Commerce published the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now March 19, 2018.
The scope of the investigation covers wire rod from the United Kingdom. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
During the course of this investigation, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Prior to the
In September 2017, we received scope case and rebuttal briefs. On November 20, 2017, we issued the Final Scope Decision Memorandum in response to the comments received.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
British Steel Limited (British Steel) informed Commerce prior to verification that it was withdrawing from participation as a mandatory respondent in this investigation.
In the
Commerce received no comments regarding its preliminary application of an AFA dumping margin to Longs Steel. For the final determination, Commerce has not altered its analysis or its decision to apply AFA to Longs Steel.
Additionally, due to British Steel's withdrawal from participation in this investigation prior to verification, we determine that British Steel's data cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation because that data could not be verified. We further determine that British Steel significantly impeded the investigation and did not act to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. Therefore, we also find it appropriate to apply an AFA dumping margin to British Steel. For further discussion,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or
As noted above, British Steel and Longs Steel are the sole mandatory respondents in this proceeding, and the margins for both companies are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, we are using the margin determined for British Steel and Longs Steel as the “all-others” rate. This rate is 147.63 percent.
For the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
For entries made by British Steel, Longs Steel, and companies covered by the “all others” rate, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of wire rod from the United Kingdom which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 2, 2017, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the
Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Celeste Chen or Jeffrey Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0890 or (202) 482-2769, respectively.
On October 4, 2017, Commerce published in the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Duracell withdrew its request
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of electrolytic manganese dioxide from China during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain cold-rolled steel flat products from India for the period September 16, 2016, to December 31, 2016, based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Robert Galantucci, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2923.
On September 1, 2017, Commerce published in the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the petitioners withdrew their request for review by the 90-day deadline. No other party requested an administrative review. Accordingly, we are rescinding the administrative review of the CVD order on certain cold-rolled steel flat products from India for the period September 16, 2016, to December 31, 2016.
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled countervailing duties.
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 an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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 notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
David Lindgren at (202) 482-3870, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On January 16, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation on imports of plastic decorative ribbon from the People's Republic of 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) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination, at the request of the petitioner, to no later than 190 days after the date on which the administering authority initiates the investigation. Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request to postpone 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, and state the request for the postponement.
On February 27, 2018, Berwick Offray, LLC (the petitioner), submitted a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) to fully postpone the preliminary determination from 140 to 190 days.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the reason for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination and the record do not present any compelling reasons to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e), we are postponing the preliminary determination in this LTFV investigation from 140 days after the date of initiation to 190 days after initation. Additionally, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from India for the period of review (POR) March 7, 2016, through August 31, 2017.
Applicable March 28, 2018.
Aleksandras Nakutis or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147 or (202) 482-4406, respectively.
On September 1, 2017, Commerce published in the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Domestic interested parties withdrew their request for review within the 90-day deadline. Because Commerce received no other requests for review of the above-referenced 52 companies, and no other requests were made for a review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel from India with respect to other companies, we are rescinding the administrative review covering the period March 7, 2016, through August 31, 2017, in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of cold-rolled steel from India during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Climate Program Office (CPO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program Office will hold an organizational meeting of the NIDIS Executive Council on April 17, 2018.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 17, 2018 from 9:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hall of the States, Room 383/385, 444 North Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001.
Veva Deheza, NIDIS Executive Director, David Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305. Email:
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) was established by Public Law 109-430 on December 20, 2006, and reauthorized by Public Law 113-86 on March 6, 2014, with a mandate to provide an effective drought early warning system for the United States; coordinate, and integrate as practicable, Federal research in support of a drought early warning system; and build upon existing forecasting and assessment programs and partnerships.
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Matching Program Commitment Form. This form is submitted by institutions of higher education that provide educational benefits for AmeriCorps alumni. These benefits can include matching the AmeriCorps Education Award that members receive after successful completion of the AmeriCorps program, scholarships, and application fee waivers. Completion of this information collection is required for institutions to enroll in the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Matching Program and appear on the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Matching Program section of the Corporation for National and Community Service website.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to CNCS at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through
Rhonda Taylor, 202-606-6721, or by email at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, DoD.
30-day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 27, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-41 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
One (1) Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) Low Volume Terminal (LVT)
Also included are Global Positioning System (GPS) Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) Chips, Simple Key Loaders (SKL), High Assurance internet Protocol Encryptors (HAIPE), Ground Support System (GSS) components for Link-16, as well as the necessary infrastructure construction, integration, installation, and sustainment services, cybersecurity services, technical and support facilities, COMSEC support, secure communications equipment, encryption devices, software development, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, security certification and accreditation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Qatar has requested to purchase equipment and support to upgrade the Qatari Emiri Air Force's (QEAF) Air Operation Center (AOC) to enhance the performance of integrated air defense planning and provide US-Qatari systems interoperability. This sale includes: one (1) Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) Low Volume Terminal (LVT), Global Positioning System (GPS) Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) chips, Simple Key Loaders (SKL), High Assurance internet Protocol Encryptors (HAIPE), Ground Support System (GSS) components for Link-16 as well as the necessary infrastructure construction, integration, installation, and sustainment services, cybersecurity services, technical and support facilities, COMSEC support, secure communications equipment, encryption devices, software development, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, security certification and accreditation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $197 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Persian Gulf region. Our mutual defense interests anchor our relationship and the Qatar Emiri Air Force (QEAF) plays a predominant role in Qatar's defense.
The upgrade of the AOC will support the defensive capability of Qatar. The proposed sale will help strengthen Qatar's capability to counter current and future threats in the region and reduce dependence on U.S. forces. Qatar will have no difficulty absorbing the required equipment and capability into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Raytheon, Waltham, MA. Qatar typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between Qatar and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of approximately five (5) additional U.S. Government and approximately fifteen (15) contractor representatives to Qatar.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal (MIDS-LVT) is an advanced Link-16 command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links is used for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements. The terminal hardware, publications, performance specifications, operational capability, parameters, vulnerabilities to countermeasures, and software documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The classified information to be provided consists of that which is necessary for the operation, maintenance, and repair (through intermediate level) of the data link terminal, installed systems, and related software.
2. A Global Positioning System (GPS) Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) deploys anti-spoofing measures using cryptography to protect authorized users from false satellite signals generated by an enemy. Information revealing SAASM implementation details such as number or length of keying variables, circuit diagrams, specific quantitative measures, functions, and capabilities are classified SECRET.
3. Software, hardware, and other data/information, which is classified or sensitive, is reviewed prior to release to protect system vulnerabilities, design data, and performance parameters. Some end-item hardware, software, and other data identified above are classified at the CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET//RELEASABLE TO QATAR level. Potential compromise of these systems is controlled through management of the basic software programs of highly sensitive systems and software-controlled weapon systems on a case-by-case basis.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made that Qatar can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to further the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed on this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Qatar.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (the Department) publishes this notice of a modified system of records entitled “Title VI International Research and Studies Program (IRS)” (18-12-04). IRS contains individually identifiable information provided by individuals to determine qualifications and eligibility for award benefits and to monitor achievements of award recipients. This information is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the IRS.
Submit your comments on this modified system of records on or before April 27, 2018.
This modified system of records will become applicable upon publication in the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Cheryl Gibbs, Division Director of Advanced Training and Research Division International Foreign Language Education (IFLE), Office of Postsecondary Education. Telephone: (202) 453-5690.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
The Department proposes to update, but not to significantly change, routine use, (3) “Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Disclosure,” (5) “Employee Grievance, Complaint, or Conduct Disclosure,” (6) “Labor Organization Disclosure,” (7) “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Advice Disclosure,” (9) “Contract Disclosure,” and (10) “Research Disclosure.” The Department also proposes to add to this system of records notice two new routine uses. Routine use (14) entitled “Disclosure in the Course of Responding to a Breach of Data” and (15) entitled “Disclosure in Assisting another Agency in Responding to a Breach of Data.” These will allow the Department to disclose records in this system in order to assist in responding to a suspected or confirmed breach of this system's, the Department's, or another Federal agency's or entity's data.
The Department is also proposing to update the record access and notification procedures.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of
Title VI International Research and Studies Program (IRS) (18-12-04).
Unclassified.
International Foreign Language Education (IFLE), Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.
Senior Director, IFLE, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202.
The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, part A, title VI, section 605(a).
The IRS awards discretionary grants to institutions, organizations, and individuals to conduct research, surveys, studies, and to develop instructional materials, including foreign language materials, to improve and strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages, study areas, and other international fields within the U.S. educational system. The information contained in this system of records is used for the following purposes: (1) To determine the qualifications and eligibility of the project directors and competitiveness of and need for the projects and to award benefits; (2) to monitor the progress of the projects, including their accomplishments; and (3) to demonstrate the program's effectiveness.
The system contains records on individual project directors who have applied to be or who have been selected to be recipients of IRS awards.
The IRS system consists of a variety of records relating to an individual's application(s) for, and participation in, the IRS. In addition to the individual's name, the system contains the participant's address, telephone number, educational institution, citizenship, Social Security number, institutional or individual Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, educational and employment background, salary, research or instructional materials, project description, project costs, field reader comments, award documents, and final project reports.
Information is obtained from the individuals and institutions on approved application forms, from field readers, and from other individuals or entities from which data is obtained under routine uses set forth below.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis, or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components.
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity.
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been requested to or has agreed to provide or arrange for representation for the employee.
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department requests representation for or has agreed to represent the employee.
(v) The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
Records are maintained electronically in a computer database and on a web-based portal maintained by the Department.
Records are retrieved by individual's grant number; however records are retrievable via all data elements in the system.
Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule (GRS) 1.2 (Grant and Cooperative Agreement Records), Items 020 (DAA-GRS-2013-0008-0001) and 021 (DAA-GRS-2013-0008-0006). Records of successful applications shall be destroyed 10 years after final action is taken on the applicable file, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. Records of unsuccessful applications shall be destroyed 3 years after final action is taken on the applicable file, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use.
All physical access to the site where this system of records is maintained is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the building. The computer system offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a “need-to-know” basis, and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system.
If you wish to request access to your records, you must contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER(S). You must provide necessary particulars, such as your full name, date of birth, Social Security number, the year of the award, the name of the grantee institution, major country in which you conducted your educational activity, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your
If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, you must contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER(S). Your request must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to inquire whether a record exists regarding you in this system, you must contact the system manager at the address listed under SYSTEM MANAGER(S). You must provide necessary particulars, such as your name, date of birth, Social Security number, the year of the award, the name of the grantee institution, major country in which you conducted your educational activity, and any other identifying information requested by the Department while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
None.
The System of Records entitled “Title VI International Research and Studies Program (IRS)” (18-12-04) was last published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
For each award year, the Secretary publishes in the
Jacquelyn C. Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 294-10, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6088.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
If the Secretary selects an applicant for verification, the applicant's Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) includes flags that indicate (1) that the applicant has been selected by the Secretary for verification and (2) the Verification Tracking Group in which the applicant has been placed. The Verification Tracking Group indicates which FAFSA information needs to be verified for the applicant and, if appropriate, for the applicant's parent(s) or spouse. The Student Aid Report (SAR) provided to the applicant will indicate that the applicant's FAFSA information has been selected for verification and direct the applicant to contact the institution for further instructions for completing the verification process.
The following chart lists, for the 2019-2020 award year, the FAFSA information that an institution and an applicant and, if appropriate, the applicant's parent(s) or spouse may be required to verify under 34 CFR 668.56. The chart also lists the acceptable documentation that must, under § 668.57, be provided to an institution for that information to be verified.
Only the following FAFSA/ISIR information must be verified:
For dependent students—
• The parents' AGI if the parents were tax filers;
• The parents' income earned from work if the parents were nontax filers; and
• The student's high school completion status and identity/statement of educational purpose, if selected.
For independent students—
• The student's and spouse's AGI if they were tax filers;
• The student's and spouse's income earned from work if they were nontax filers;
• The student's high school completion status and identity/statement of educational purpose, if selected; and
• The number of household members to determine if the independent student has one or more dependents other than a spouse.
We provide a more detailed discussion on the verification process in the following resources:
•
•
•
•
• Program Integrity Information—Questions and Answers on Verification at
These publications are on the Information for Financial Aid Professionals website at
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a-1, 1070b-1070b-4, 1070c-1070c-4, 1070g, 1071-1087-2, 1087a-1087j, and 1087aa-1087ii; 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
Dr. Tristram West, Designated Federal Officer, BERAC, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, SC-23/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1290. Phone 301-903-5155; fax (301) 903-5051 or email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, April 11, 2018, 6:00 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831.
Melyssa P. Noe, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM), P.O. Box 2001, EM-942, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 241-6932; E-Mail:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee
Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Pojoaque, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice.
EIA submitted an information collection request for extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension with no changes to Form EIA-111, “
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than April 27, 2018. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the DOE Desk Officer at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to:
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions, should be directed to Tosha Beckford at 202-287-6597, or email it to
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
Take notice that on March 19, 2018, Edison Electric Institute filed a request approval for electric companies to use Account 439, recently authorized by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that on March 9, 2018, Florida Southeast Connection, LLC (FSC), 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408, filed an application under sections 7(c) and 7(e) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting authorization to acquire, operate, and maintain approximately 38 miles of existing natural gas pipeline, three 3,500 brake horsepower (bhp) electric-powered compressors, and related facilities (Riviera Lateral), located in Martin and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, which are currently owned by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and operated as non-jurisdictional facilities. The facilities currently have a capacity of 384 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to William Lavarco, Attorney, Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408, or by calling (202) 347-7127 or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on February 28, 2018, Xcel Energy Services Inc. filed a request to change the accounting for the transmission related billings under the Restated Agreement to Coordinate Planning and Operations and Interchange Power and Energy between Northern States Power Company (Minnesota) and Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 12, 2018, the City of Dover, Delaware submitted its tariff filing: Compliance Filing Docket Nos. NJ17-10-002 and EL17-78-000 to be effective 6/1/2017.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection FERC-725F (Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination) and submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission published a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due April 27, 2018.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0249, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC18-3-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA.
On November 19, 2007, NERC filed its petition for Commission approval of the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability Standard, designated NUC-001-1. In Order No. 716, issued October 16, 2008, the Commission approved the standard while also directing certain revisions.
The most recent OMB approval for FERC-725F was issued on 6/15/2015.
The purpose of Reliability Standard NUC -001-3 is to require coordination between Nuclear Plant Generator Operators and Transmission Entities for the purpose of ensuring nuclear plant safe operation and shutdown.
FERC-725F information collection requirements include establishing and maintaining interface agreements, including record retention requirements. These agreements are not filed with FERC, but with the appropriate entities as established by the Reliability Standard.
The estimated hourly cost (for wages plus benefits) for reporting requirements is $84.23/hour, based on the average for an electrical engineer (occupation code 17-2071, $68.12/hour), legal (occupation code 23-0000, $143.68/hour), and office and administrative support (occupation code 43-0000, $40.89/hour).
The estimated hourly cost (wages plus benefits) for record keeping is $32.74/hour for a file clerk (occupation code 43-4071).
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This form will enable EXIM to identify the specific details of the proposed co-financing transaction between a U.S. exporter, EXIM, and a foreign export credit agency; the information collected includes vital facts such as the amount of U.S.-made content in the export, the amount of financing requested from EXIM, and the proposed financing amount from the foreign export credit agency. These details are necessary for approving this unique transaction structure and coordinating our support with that of the foreign export credit agency to ultimately complete the transaction and support U.S. exports—and U.S. jobs.
Comments should be received on or before May 29, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
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
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 29, 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.
Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 218, 303(r) and 47 CFR Section 0.181(h).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 27, 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.
Submit PRA comments to OMB via email:
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.
Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 23, 2018.
1.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement and the reinstatement of GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims, regarding final payment under construction and building services contract. GSA Contracting Officers have used this form to achieve uniformity and consistency in the release of claims process.
Submit comments on or before: May 29, 2018.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0080,Contract Financing Final Payment; (GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims) by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Leah Price, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, by phone at 202-714-9482 or by email at
The General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause 552.232-72 requires construction and building services contractors to submit a release of claims before final payment is made to ensure contractors are paid in accordance with their contract requirements and for work performed. GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims, is used to achieve uniformity and consistency in the release of claims process.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by April 27, 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 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.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 27, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Agency regulations and accompanying guidance. Specifically, section 413(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)) provides that at least 75 days before the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient, the manufacturer or distributor of the dietary supplement or of the new dietary ingredient is to submit to FDA (as delegate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services) information upon which the manufacturer or distributor has based its conclusion that a dietary supplement containing the new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. FDA's implementing regulation, § 190.6 (21 CFR 190.6), requires this information to be submitted to the Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements (ONLDS) in the form of a notification. Under § 190.6(b), the notification must include the following: (1) the name and complete address of the manufacturer or distributor, (2) the name of the new dietary ingredient, (3) a description of the dietary supplement(s) that contain the new dietary ingredient, including the level of the new dietary ingredient in the dietary supplement and the dietary supplement's conditions of use, (4) the history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement, and (5) the signature of a responsible person designated by the manufacturer or distributor.
These premarket notification requirements are designed to enable us to monitor the introduction into the marketplace of new dietary ingredients and dietary supplements that contain new dietary ingredients in order to protect consumers from ingredients and products whose safety is unknown. FDA uses the information collected in new dietary ingredient notifications to evaluate the safety of new dietary ingredients in dietary supplements and to support regulatory action against ingredients and products that are potentially unsafe.
FDA has developed an electronic portal that respondents may use to electronically submit their notifications to ONLDS via FDA Unified Registration and Listing Systems. Firms that prefer to submit a paper notification in a format of their own choosing still have the option to do so; however, Form FDA 3880 prompts a submitter to input the elements of a new dietary ingredient notification (NDIN) in a standard format and helps the respondent organize its NDIN to focus on the information needed for FDA's safety review. Safety information may be submitted via a supplemental form entitled “New Dietary Ingredient Safety Information.” This form provides a standard format to describe the history of use or other evidence of safety on which the manufacturer or distributor bases its conclusion that the new dietary ingredient is reasonably expected to be safe under the conditions of use recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement, as well as related identity information that is necessary to demonstrate safety by showing that the new dietary ingredient and dietary supplement(s) that are the subject of the notification are the same or similar to the ingredients and products for which safety data and information have been provided. We continue to invite comment on Form FDA 3880 and the supplemental safety information form, which may be found on our website at
In the
FDA appreciates this feedback. As noted, FDA has issued a draft guidance on Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues and will take the comment on additional guidance into consideration when finalizing the draft guidance. As resources allow, FDA may consider revised or additional guidance to assist respondents to the information collection. Relatedly, with regard to comments about costs or economic impact, FDA notes that, consistent with our regulations at 21 CFR part 10.115 (Good Guidance Practices), recommendations found in the draft guidance document are for comment only. In addition, the data analysis proffered regarding costs does not provide a basis upon which we can revise our burden estimate under the PRA. Notices published in the
We therefore retain the following estimate:
We have made no adjustments to the currently approved burden estimate for the information collection. While we have received comments previously suggesting our burden estimate may be too low, the comments did not discuss the basis for such a conclusion. We therefore specifically invite individual respondent experience with the information collection and associated collection burden.
Based on our experience with the information collection over the past 3 years, we estimate that 55 respondents will submit 1 premarket notification each. We assume that extracting and summarizing relevant information from existing files and presenting it in a format that meets the requirements of § 190.6 will take approximately 20 hours of work per notification. We have carefully considered the burden associated with the premarket notification requirement and believe that estimates greater than 20 hours are likely to include burden associated with researching and generating safety data for a new dietary ingredient. We believe that the burden of the premarket notification requirement on industry is minimal and reasonable because we are requesting only safety and identity information that the manufacturer or distributor should already have developed to satisfy itself that a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient is in compliance with the FD&C Act. Under section 413(a)(2) of the FD&C Act, a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient is deemed to be adulterated unless there is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe under the conditions of use recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement. This requirement is separate from and additional to the requirement to submit a premarket notification for the new dietary ingredient. FDA's regulation on new dietary ingredient notifications, § 190.6(a), requires the manufacturer or distributor of the dietary supplement or of the new dietary ingredient to submit to FDA the information that forms the basis for its conclusion that a dietary supplement containing the new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. Thus, § 190.6 only requires the manufacturer or distributor to extract and summarize information that should have already been developed to meet the safety requirement in section 413(a)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee and the Pediatric Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on May 3, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Bethesda—Washington DC, Grand Ballroom, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814-3624. The conference center's telephone number is 301-652-2000. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA Advisory Committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1184. The docket will close on May 2, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by May 2, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 2, 2018. The
Comments received on or before April 19, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Jay R. Fajiculay, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jay R. Fajiculay (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 29, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
We are seeking OMB approval of the NAFDS under FSMA, section 108. This is a voluntary survey of State governments intended to gauge government activities in food and agriculture defense from intentional contamination and emerging threats. The collected information will be included in the mandatory 2019 NAFDS followup Report to Congress. The authority for FDA to collect the information derives from the
Protecting the nation's food and agriculture supply against intentional contamination and other emerging threats is an important responsibility shared by Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments as well as private sector partners. On January 4, 2011, the President signed FSMA. FSMA focuses on ensuring the safety of the U.S. food supply by shifting the efforts of Federal regulators from response to prevention, and recognizes the importance of strengthening existing collaboration among all stakeholders to achieve common public health and security goals. FSMA identifies some key priorities for working with partners in areas such as reliance on Federal, State, and local agencies for inspections; improving foodborne illness surveillance; and leveraging and enhancing State and local food safety and defense capacities. Section 108 of FSMA (NAFDS) requires HHS and the USDA, in coordination with the DHS, to work together with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments-to monitor and measure progress in food defense.
In 2015, the initial NAFDS Report to Congress detailed the specific Federal response to food and agriculture defense goals, objectives, key initiatives, and activities that HHS, USDA, DHS, and other stakeholders planned to accomplish to meet the objectives outlined in FSMA. The NAFDS charts a direction for how the Federal Agencies, in cooperation with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments and private sector partners, protect the nation's food supply against intentional contamination. Not later than 4 years after the initial NAFDS Report to Congress (2015), and every 4 years thereafter (
HHS/FDA is primarily responsible for obtaining the information from Federal and State, local, territorial, and tribal partners to complete the NAFDS Report to Congress. An interagency working group will conduct the survey and collect and update the NAFDS as directed by FSMA, including developing metrics and measuring progress for the evaluation process.
The proposed survey of Federal and State partners will be used to determine what food defense activities, if any, Federal and/or State Agencies have completed (or are planning) from 2015 to 2019. Planning for the local, territorial, and tribal information collections will commence after the collection and reporting of Federal and State Agency level data.
This survey will be repeated approximately every 2 to 4 years, as described in section 108 of FSMA, NAFDS, for the purpose of monitoring progress in food and agricultural defense by government agencies.
A purposive sampling strategy will be employed, such that the government agencies participating in food and agricultural defense cooperative agreements with FDA (22 State Agencies) and USDA (27 State Agencies) will be asked to respond to the voluntary survey. Food defense leaders responsible for conducting food defense activities during a food emergency for their jurisdiction will be identified and will receive an emailed invitation to complete the survey online; they will be provided with a web link to the survey. The survey will be conducted electronically on the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The total burden for this collection of information, therefore, is 16.17 hours.
The FDA Office of Partnerships reviewed the questionnaire and provided the amount of time to complete the survey. The total burden is based on our previous experiences conducting surveys.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 27, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports the above captioned Agency guidance. Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353b) describes conditions that must be met in order for compounded drugs to receive exemptions from certain sections of the FD&C Act, including section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use); section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of human drug products under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)) and section 582 (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) (concerning drug supply chain security requirements). One of the conditions that must be met for a compounded drug product to qualify for the exemptions under section 503B of the FD&C Act is that “the drug is not essentially a copy of one or more approved drugs” (section 503B(a)(5)).
According to section 503B(d)(2) of the FD&C Act, a compounded drug is essentially a copy of an approved drug when it (1) is identical or nearly identical to an approved drug that is not on FDA's drug shortage list at the time the drug is compounded, distributed, and dispensed; or to a non-prescription drug product marketed without an approved application, or (2) contains the same bulk drug substance as an approved drug or a non-prescription drug product marketed without an approved application, unless there is a change that produces a clinical difference for an individual patient as determined by the prescribing practitioner between the compounded drug and the approved drug (see section 503B(d)(2)(A) and (B)).
Under the policy proposed in the draft guidance, if an outsourcing facility intends to rely on a prescriber determination made under section 503B(d)(2)(B) to establish that a compounded drug is not essentially a copy of an approved drug, the outsourcing facility should ensure that the determination is documented on the prescription or order (which may be a patient-specific prescription or a non-patient specific order) for the compounded drug.
If a prescription or order does not make clear that the determination required by section 503B(d)(2)(B) has been made, the outsourcing facility may contact the prescriber or health care facility, and if the prescriber or health care facility contact confirms it, make a notation on the prescription or order that the prescriber has determined that the compounded product contains a change that produces a clinical difference for patient(s). The date of the conversation with the health care facility contact or prescriber, and the name of the individual providing the determination, should be included on the prescription or order.
In addition, if the outsourcing facility compounded a drug that is identical or nearly identical to an approved drug product that appeared on FDA's drug shortage list, the outsourcing facility should maintain documentation (
An outsourcing facility should also maintain records of prescriptions or orders including notations that a prescriber has determined that the compounded drug has a change that produces a clinical difference for an individual patient. Because the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with this collection of information would be incurred by licensed pharmacists and licensed physicians in the normal course of their activities, it is excluded from the definition of “burden” under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).
In the
FDA also notes that for non-patient specific orders, the guidance states that an outsourcing facility may obtain a statement from the prescribing practitioner or a person able to make a representation for the health care practitioner. For example, a pharmacy manager could order a compounded drug and document on the order that the compounded drug will only be administered to patients for whom the prescriber determines that this formulation will produce a clinical difference.
As none of the comments suggested that we revise our estimated burden for the information collection, we have retained our original estimate as follows:
We estimate that annually a total of approximately 40 outsourcing facilities (“number of respondents” in table 1, line 1) will consult a prescriber to determine whether he or she has made a determination that the compounded drug has a change that produces a clinical difference for an individual patient as compared to the comparable approved drug and that outsourcing facilities will document this determination on approximately 4,000 prescriptions or orders for compounded drugs (“total annual disclosures” in table 1, line 1). We estimate that the consultation between the outsourcing facility and the prescriber or health care facility contact adding a notation to each prescription or order that does not already document this determination will take approximately 3 minutes per prescription or order.
We estimate that a total of approximately 30 outsourcing facilities (“number of respondents” in table 1, line 2) will document this information on approximately 3,000 prescriptions or orders for compounded drugs (“total annual disclosures” in table 1, line 2). We estimate that checking FDA's drug shortage list and documenting this information will take approximately 2 minutes per prescription or order.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 27, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA regulations under 21 CFR 101. As published in the
In the
We are very appreciative of these comments. At the same time, upon our own review of the information collection, we are seeking to consolidate the burden currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0783 with 0910-0782 because it is intended to account for similar collection activities and is supported by the same collection instrument (Form FDA 3757) identified above. Also, as neither the public comments we received nor our own evaluation suggested we revise our original figures, we are retaining the currently approved estimated burden for the information collection, which is as follows:
These figures are based on our analyses in support of the underlying rulemaking cited above and there is no burden increase since the previous OMB approvals. Because these are newly established information collection provisions, we continue to evaluate the collection burden and solicit public comment, noting that the effective dates and/or compliance dates for certain provisions have not yet been realized.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and, (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, to direct program activities, and to better allocate resources.
While NSDUH must be updated periodically to reflect changing substance use and mental health issues, and to continue producing current data, only the following minor changes are planned for the 2019 NSDUH: (1) Adding a brief series of questions on medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioids and alcohol; and, (2) including other minor wording changes to improve the flow of the interview, to increase respondent comprehension, or to be consistent with text in other questions.
The series of MAT questions seeks to identify medications prescribed by health professionals to help reduce or stop the use of opioids and alcohol. Including these questions in NSDUH will allow SAMHSA to provide the first known national-level estimates on the use of MAT for opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder.
As with all NSDUH surveys conducted since 1999, including those prior to 2002 when the NSDUH was referred to as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the sample size of the survey for 2019 will be sufficient to permit prevalence estimates for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The total annual burden estimate is shown below in Table 1.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 15E57B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857
Written comments should be received by May 29, 2018.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee. The Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security through the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant on matters relating to Great Lakes pilotage, including review of proposed Great Lakes pilotage regulations and policies.
Completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before April 27, 2018.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Rajiv Khandpur, Designated Federal Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone 202-372-1525, fax 202-372-8387, or email at
The Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix). The Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 9307, and makes recommendations to the Secretary and the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to the Great Lakes.
Meetings of the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee will be held with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. The Committee is required to meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be held at the request of a majority of the Committee or at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer.
Each Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee member serves a term of office of up to 3 years. Members may serve a maximum of six consecutive years. All members serve without compensation from the Federal Government; however, they may receive travel reimbursement and per diem.
We will consider applications for two positions that will become vacant on September 30, 2018.
• One member representing the interests of vessel operators that contract for Great Lakes Pilotage Services;
• One member with a background in finance or accounting, who—
a. Must have been recommended to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security by a unanimous vote of the other members of the Committee, and
b. May be appointed without regard to the requirement that each member have five years of practical experience in maritime operations.
To be eligible, applicants should have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience regarding the regulations and policies on the pilotage vessels on the Great Lakes, and at least five years of practical experience in maritime operations.
The category for a member with a background in finance and accounting would be someone appointed in their individual capacity and would be designated as a Special Government Employee as defined in 202(a) of Title 18, U.S.C. As a candidate for appointment as a Special Government Employee, applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal Court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the Designated U.S. Coast Guard Ethics Official or his or her designee may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Applicants can obtain this form by going to the website of the Office of Government Ethics (
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory Committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to federal advisory committees, Boards and Commissions” (79 FR 47482, August 13, 2014). Registered lobbyists are lobbyists as defined in Title 2 U.S.C. 1602 who are required by Title 2 U.S.C. 1603 to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House Representatives.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Rajiv Khandpur, Designated Federal Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, via one of the transmittal methods in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given in
•
•
Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator, 404-679-7097 (telephone) or 404-679-7081 (fax).
We invite review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On December 29, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into the following type of leases without BIA approval: Business and other authorized purposes.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, telephone: (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH (Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership) Act of 2012 (the Act) makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The Act authorizes tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act also authorizes tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating tribes develop tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The Act requires the Secretary to approve tribal regulations if the tribal regulations are consistent with the Department's leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the tribal regulations for the
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that,
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial tribal interests in effective tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Just like BIA's surface leasing regulations, tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On December 29, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Ramona Band of Cahuilla's leasing regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into leases for business purposes without further BIA approval.
Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH Act of 2012 makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop tribal leasing regulations, including an
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, California.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On December 28, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into the following type of leases without BIA approval: Business.
Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH (Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On December 28, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Indian Lands Leasing Act of 2017 leasing Regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into business, wind and solar, wind energy evaluation, and other authorized purposes leases without further BIA approval.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On November 9, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho's leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into residential leases without BIA approval.
Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH (Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership) Act of 2012 (the Act) makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department's leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.
This document was received at The Office of the Federal Register on March 23, 2018.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On November 9, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Business Site Leasing regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into business site leases without further BIA approval.
Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH Act of 2012 makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department's leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the State of Oklahoma.
This document was received at The Office of the Federal Register on March 23, 2018.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On November 9, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Coquille Indian Tribe leasing regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into business site leases without further BIA approval.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Coquille Indian Tribe.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72,440, 72,447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Coquille Indian Tribe.
This document was received at The Office of the Federal Register on March 23, 2018.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Interior made a final agency determination to acquire 102.98 acres, more or less, of land near the City of Guymon, Texas County, Oklahoma, in trust for the Shawnee Tribe for gaming and other purposes on January 19, 2018.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, MS-3657, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 219-4066.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1, and is published to comply with the requirements of 25 CFR 151.12(c)(2)(ii) that notice of the decision to acquire land in trust be promptly provided in the
On January 19, 2018, the Secretary of the Interior issued a decision to accept approximately 102.98 acres, more or less, of land near the City of Guymon, Texas County, Oklahoma, (Site) in trust for the Shawnee Tribe (Tribe), under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108. The Department previously determined on January 19, 2017, that the Tribe is eligible to conduct gaming on the Site pursuant to Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A). On March 3, 2017, the Governor of the State of Oklahoma concurred with the Department's finding.
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, will immediately acquire title to the Guymon Site in the name of the United States of America in trust for the Tribe upon fulfillment of Departmental requirements. The 102.98 acres, more or less, are located in Texas County, Oklahoma, and are described as follows:
All that part of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) and the South Half (S/2) of the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) lying South of the South Right-of-Way line of U.S. Highway 54 in Section Eleven (11), Township Two (2) North, Range Fourteen (14) East, Cimarron Base and Meridian, Texas County, Oklahoma, being more particularly described in TRUE NORTH bearings as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of the SW/4 of said Section 11; thence N 00°18′19″ E, a distance of 1,291.19 feet to the intersection between said West line of the SW/4 and the South line of a tract of land as described and filed in Book 983 at Page 434 in the Office of the Texas County Clerk; thence along the South line of said tract as filed in Book 983 at Page 434 for the following seven (7) courses:
1. Thence S 89°36′25″ E, a distance of 41.40 feet;
2. Thence N 00°23′35″ E, a distance of 8.74 feet;
3. Thence with a curve turning to the Right with an arc length of 81.63 feet, with a radius of 162.00 feet, with a chord bearing of N 14°49′42″ E, with a chord length of 80.77 feet;
4. Thence N 29°15′47″ E, a distance of 211.01 feet;
5. Thence with a curve turning to the Left with an arc length of 106.48 feet, with a radius of 238.00 feet, with a chord bearing of N 16°26′47″ E, with a chord length of 105.59 feet;
6. Thence N 24°40′53″ E, a distance of 179.39 feet;
7. Thence N 54°15′23″ E, a distance of 1,305.47 feet to a point common with the West line of the NE/4 SW/4; Thence S 00°21′54″ W, along the West line of the NE/4 SW/4, a distance of 1,270.87 feet to the Southwest Corner thereof; thence S 89°45′32″ E, along the South line of the NE/4 SW/4, a distance of 1,321.40 feet to the Southeast Corner thereof; thence S 00°25′29″ W, along the East line of the S/2 SW/4, a distance of 1,323.96 feet to the Southeast Corner thereof; thence N 89°44′49″ W, along the South line of the SW/4, a distance of 2,640.03 feet to the True Point of Beginning, having an area of 102.98 Acres, more or less. Basis of Bearings are True North. Said being described by Obert D. Bennett, PLS. No. 1471 on October 6, 2014. Surface Only.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On December 29, 2017, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan (Tribe) leasing regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into business, agricultural, residential, wind and solar resource, and wind energy evaluation leases without further BIA approval.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating tribes develop tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve tribal regulations if the tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the tribal regulations for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial tribal interests in effective tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan.
This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 23, 2018.
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), Interior.
Announcement of Tribal information sessions.
This notice announces two telephonic Tribal information sessions pertaining to the consolidation of OST's Office of Appraisal Services and the Office of Valuation Services into a new Appraisal and Valuation Services Office, located within the existing Office of Policy, Management and Budget.
Consultation sessions will be held by phone on Tuesday, April 24, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EST, and Wednesday, April 25, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. EST. See the
This information is also posted at
Mr. Eldred Lesansee, AVSO Associate Deputy Director at
In June 2016, Congress passed the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act (ITARA), Public Law 114-178. Title III, Section 305(a) of ITARA requires that appraisals and valuations of Indian trust property be administered by a single bureau, agency, or other administrative entity within the Department by December 22, 2017. Currently, the Office of Appraisal Services (OAS), within the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), conducts appraisals of Indian trust property, while the Office of Valuation Services (OVS) conducts appraisals of non-Indian trust property, as well as mineral evaluations for Indian and non-Indian property.
In 2016, the Department held ten consultation sessions and a listening session with Tribes in various locations throughout the United States regarding Sections 303, 304, and 305 of ITARA, and held an open period for the submission of written comments. During consultation, the Department sought input on six options for the consolidation of appraisals and valuations and invited Tribes to suggest additional options.
The Department conducted an inventory and analysis of the OAS's current functions, and then assessed options for the future of those functions. After careful consideration of feedback from Tribes and individuals, and close collaboration with our internal stakeholders, the Department decided to consolidate OAS and OVS into a single office: the Appraisals and Valuation Services Office (AVSO), to be located in the existing Office of Policy, Management and Budget. On March 19, 2018, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order No. 3363 consolidating appraisal and evaluation functions for trust property into the AVSO. The efficiencies garnered from administration by a single entity will enhance the Department's ability to improve the delivery of appraisal and minerals evaluation services to our clients.
The Department is hosting two information sessions for Tribes on this action to consolidate the OAS and OVS into a new AVSO.
The toll-free call-in number for the sessions are as follows:
• April 24, 2018: (877) 918-1345, participant code 8512946.
• April 25, 2018: (877) 918-1345, participant code 8512946.
E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67250, and Section 2 of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1262).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed official filing.
The plat of survey for the land described in this notice is scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The survey, which was executed at the request of the BLM, is necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than 30 days after the date of this publication.
A copy of the plat may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plat may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Josh Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana; telephone: (406) 896-5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) are proposing to renew an information collection used by the regulatory authority to determine if surface coal mine applicants can comply with the applicable performance and environmental standards required by the law.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 27, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provides the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission reverses in-part and affirms in-part, with additional reasoning, the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on October 26, 2017. The Commission also takes no position on various issues. The Commission finds no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred, and terminates the investigation.
Amanda Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 25, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Andrea Electronics Corp. of Bohemia, New York (“Andrea”). 81 FR 73418 (Oct. 25, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (“the '607 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (“the '345 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 (“the '637 patent”). The Commission's notice of investigation named the following respondents: Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”); and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Korea, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, “Samsung”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party in this investigation. Samsung was previously terminated from the investigation. Order No. 68; Comm'n Notice (Sept. 13, 2017). All asserted claims of the '607 and '637 patents were also previously terminated from the investigation. Order No. 37; Comm'n Notice (June 30, 2018); Order No. 31; Comm'n Notice (May 25, 2017).
On October 26, 2017, the ALJ issued her final ID finding no violation of section 337 by Apple with respect to the '345 patent. Specifically, the final ID found that Andrea does not have standing to assert the '345 patent, the accused products do not infringe the '345 patent, and Andrea has not met the domestic industry requirements.
On November 8, 2017, Andrea and OUII each filed timely petitions for review of the final ID. That same day, Apple filed a contingent petition for review of the final ID. On November 16, 2017, the parties each filed a timely response to the petitions for review. On November 27, 2017, the private parties filed their public interest comments pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50. No public interest comments were received from the public.
On January 11, 2018, the Commission determined to review the final ID in-part. 83 FR 2670-71 (Jan. 18, 2018). Specifically, the Commission determined to review the ID's findings on (1) standing, (2) infringement, (3) invalidity, (4) inequitable conduct, and (5) domestic industry. On January 25, 2018, Andrea, Apple, and OUII each filed a response to the Commission's
Having considered the record in this investigation and the parties' submissions, the Commission finds that no violation of section 337 has occurred. The Commission (1) reverses the ID's finding on standing and finds that Andrea has standing to assert the '345 patent; (2) affirms, with additional reasoning, the ID's finding of no domestic industry; and (3) takes no position on the remaining issues under review.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 22) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting an amended joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a license and settlement agreement. The investigation is terminated.
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 27, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Honeywell International, Inc. of Morris Plains, New Jersey; Hand Held Products, Inc. d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility of Fort Mill, South Carolina; Metrologic Instruments, Inc. d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility of Fort Mill, South Carolina (collectively, “Complainants” or “Honeywell”).
On December 8, 2017, the ALJ issued an initial determination partially terminating the investigation as to Cortex as a respondent.
On February 21, 2018, Honeywell and Code filed an amended joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a license and settlement agreement (
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 10), which terminated the investigation for good cause on the basis of the imminent expiration of the asserted patent. On review, the Commission has determined to affirm the termination based upon the actual expiration of the asserted patent.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 22, 2018, based upon an amended and supplemented complaint filed by Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D. and WebXchange, Inc., both of Menlo Park, California. 83 FR 3021 (Jan. 22, 2018). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by a number of proposed respondents in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain IOT devices and components thereof (IOT, the Internet of Things)—web applications displayed on a web browser by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340 (“the '340 patent”), as well as unfair methods of competition and unfair acts (criminal and civil RICO violations, breach of contract, theft of intellectual property, antitrust violations, and trade secret misappropriation), the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. 83 FR at 3021. The Commission determined to institute the investigation only as to infringement of the '340 patent, and named as respondents Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California; Facebook, Inc. of Menlo Park, California; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Seoul, South Korea.
On January 29, 2018, the respondents moved to terminate the investigation based upon the then-imminent expiration of the '340 patent. The complainants responded in opposition to the motion. The ALJ denied the motion for failure to comply with Commission rules. Order No. 8 at 2 & n.1 (Feb. 20, 2018). On February 21, 2018, the respondents filed a renewed motion to terminate, which corrected the omission in their previous motion. The complainants renewed their opposition to the motion. OUII supported the motion.
On February 27, 2018, the ALJ granted the motion as an ID, finding that good cause exists for terminating the investigation. The ID finds that given “the structure of section 337 investigations” there was insufficient time for the Commission to “reach a final determination or issue any relief before the March 5, 2018 expiration date” of the '340 patent. Order No. 10 at 6.
On March 5, 2018, the '340 patent expired. That same day, the complainants filed a “Motion for Rehearing and Reinstating the Investigation” (“Compl'ts Submission”). The Commission determined to treat that submission as a petition for Commission review of the ID under 19 CFR 210.43. The petition seeks an advisory ruling on certain issues. Compl'ts Submission 6.
On March 12, 2018, the respondents and OUII filed responses in opposition to the complainants' submission. The responses explain,
Having considered the record of the investigation, including the parties' submissions to the Commission, the Commission decides as follows. The Commission “can issue only an exclusion order barring future importation or a cease and desist order barring future conduct,” neither of which can issue as to an expired patent.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Notice of open meeting.
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a meeting on June 12, 2018. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
June 12, 2018.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, One Columbus Circle NE, Washington, DC 20544.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, notice is hereby given that the Office of Justice Programs (hereinafter OJP), a component within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), proposes to develop a new system of records titled National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, JUSTICE/OJP—015. The OJP proposes to establish this system of records to improve the quantity and quality of—and appropriate access to—
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is applicable upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by April 27, 2018.
The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile at 202-307-0693, or email at
Charles Heurich, Senior Physical Scientist, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531,
The National Institute of Justice's National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) houses records and information in a centralized system regarding cases of missing persons, unidentified persons (decedents), and unclaimed persons (decedents), and makes certain information available, based on access privileges, to the general public, law enforcement professionals, coroners, and medical examiners to help solve such cases. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.
National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs), JUSTICE/OJP—015
Unclassified
Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531
Point of Contact: Charles Heurich,
Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (sections 201 and 202); Homeland Security Act of 2002 (section 232); and 28 U.S.C. 530C.
The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) houses records and information regarding cases of missing persons, unidentified decedents, and unclaimed decedents, and makes appropriate information available to the general public and law enforcement professionals to help solve such cases.
Missing persons and registered users of the system, including registered law enforcement personnel, coroners, medical examiners, and members of the public, and although not covered by the Privacy Act, unidentified decedents and unclaimed decedents (named but no next of kin).
Missing person case information, unidentified decedent case information, unclaimed decedent case information, and administrative data for registered users. Case information that is available to the general public may include, but is not limited to, case numbers, name, demographic information (such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, height, and weight), last known location, date of last contact, physical description, clothing and accessories, vehicle and transportation information, investigating agency information, and photographs. Professional users have access to additional case information that may include, but is not limited to, date of birth, place of birth, Social Security number (SSN) (for missing persons cases only), DNA availability (specifically whether a DNA sample exists and was submitted to a laboratory, and if so, which laboratory and whether the lab results are available—neither DNA profiles nor DNA testing results are housed within the NamUs system), fingerprint records, dental records, and family contact information. Administrative data for registered users includes, but is not limited to, name, address, email address, telephone number, work title (for professional users only) and agency name (for professional users only).
Professional users and members of the public provide information for the system:
•
•
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected:
1. To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement or medicolegal authority (whether federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international), where the information is relevant to the recipient entity's law enforcement or medicolegal responsibilities.
2. To a governmental entity lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement, law enforcement intelligence, medicolegal, or national security intelligence information for such purposes when determined to be relevant by the DOJ.
3. Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law.
4. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
5. To an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement, plea bargaining, or informal discovery proceedings.
6. To the news media and members of the general public, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
7. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
8. To designated officers and employees of federal, state, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement or detention agencies in connection with the hiring or continued employment of an employee or contractor, where the employee or contractor would occupy or occupies a position of public trust as a law enforcement officer or detention officer having direct contact with the public or with prisoners or detainees, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the recipient agency's decision.
9. To appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity that requires information relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
10. To former employees of the Department for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, local, tribal or territorial government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating communications with former employees that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
11. To federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international licensing agencies or associations which require information concerning the suitability or eligibility of an individual for a license or permit.
12. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
13. To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
14. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
15. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
16. To any agency, organization, or individual for the purposes of performing authorized audit and oversight operations of the DOJ and meeting related reporting requirements.
17. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute or treaty.
Records in this system are stored in electronic form for use in a computer environment.
Information in this system may be retrieved by personal identifier, including but not limited to, an individual's name, case number, physical description, and other unique case information metadata, such as scars, marks, and tattoos.
The records will be maintained in a secure manner within the NamUs information technology system until disposition. The retention period for the NamUs system is pending; until the National Archives and Records Administration approves the retention and disposal schedule, records will be treated as permanent.
Internet connections are protected by multiple firewalls. Information technology security personnel conduct periodic vulnerability scans using DOJ-approved software to ensure security compliance and security logs are enabled for all DOJ computers that access the system to assist in troubleshooting and forensic analysis during incident investigations. For access to sensitive information that is not published for public access, users of the system can only gain access to the data based on their access privileges and by a valid user identification and password. Access to the data in the system is further limited by the user's assigned role within the system. All communications between users and the system are protected by secure communication protocol that provides confidentiality and integrity of the transmitted data. The system leverages Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) compliant cloud service infrastructure with security controls including physical safeguards appropriate for a system categorized as “moderate” under applicable Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA)-related information technology standards.
All requests for access to records must be in writing and should be addressed to the Government Information Specialist, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, Room 5400, 810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 or
Although no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the FOIA/Privacy Act Mail Referral Unit, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, or on the Department of Justice website at
More information regarding the Department's procedures for accessing records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR part 16 Subpart D, “Protection of Privacy and Access to Individual Records Under the Privacy Act of 1974.”
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained in this system of records must direct their requests to the address indicated in the RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES section, above. All requests to contest or amend records must be in writing and the envelope and letter should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” All requests must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record.
More information regarding the Department's procedures for amending or contesting records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR 16.46, “Requests for Amendment or Correction of Records.”
Individuals may be notified if a record in this system of records pertains to them when the individuals request information utilizing the same procedures as those identified in the RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES section, above.
None.
None.
Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Justice.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, notice is hereby given that the Office of Inspector General (OIG), a component within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), is publishing a new system of records notice titled “Data Analytics Program Records System,” JUSTICE/OIG-006. OIG proposes to establish this system of records to assist with the performance of audits, investigations, and reviews, and to accommodate the requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is applicable upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Therefore, please submit any comments by April 27, 2018.
The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments by mail to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530; by facsimile at 202-307-0693; or by email at
William Blier, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-3435.
Under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, Inspectors General, including the DOJ Inspector General, are responsible for conducting, supervising, and coordinating audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the Federal agency for which their office is established to recognize and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse. This system of records facilitates OIG's performance of its statutory responsibility by implementing a data analytics (DA) program to assist with the performance of OIG audits, investigations, and reviews, and accommodate the requirements of the DATA Act, Public Law 113-101, 128 Stat. 1146.
The DA program will provide OIG: Timely insights from the data already stored in DOJ databases that OIG has legal authorization to access and maintain; the ability to monitor and analyze data for patterns and correlations that signal wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive activities impacting Department performance and operations; the ability to find, acquire, extract, manipulate, analyze, connect, and visualize data; the capability to manage vast amounts of data; the ability to identify significant information that can improve decision quality; and the ability to mitigate risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. The DA program will also allow the OIG to obtain technology to develop risk indicators that can analyze large volumes of data and help focus OIG's efforts to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. OIG intends to use statistical and mathematical techniques to identify areas to conduct audits and identify activities that may indicate whether an investigation is warranted. The information maintained within this system of records will be limited to only information that OIG has legal authorization to collect and maintain as part of its responsibility to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of Department programs and operations to recognize and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12), records maintained in this system of records may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency without the prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains. Such disclosure will only be made in accordance 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.
Data Analytics Program Records System, JUSTICE/OIG-006.
Classified and Controlled Unclassified Information.
Access to these electronic records includes all Department locations that the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) operates or that support OIG operations, including but not limited to, 1425 New York Avenue, Washington, DC 20005. Some or all system information may also be duplicated at other locations where the Department has granted direct access to
Director, Office of Data Analytics, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, 1425 New York Avenue NW, Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20530, telephone: 202-353-7493.
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 3; DATA Act, 31 U.S.C. 3521
The system will use data that the OIG has the legal authority to collect and maintain to perform advanced statistical and mathematical techniques. The goal of this work is to identify anomalies in the data that indicate fraudulent or inappropriate activity. The work can also improve audit quality by helping to identify specific areas for OIG attention. The product of this work can be used by the OIG to identify areas to conduct audits or activities that may indicate that an investigation is warranted.
The categories of individuals covered by the system include current and former DOJ employees; DOJ contractors; recipients of DOJ grants awards or funds, whether direct or indirect; parties to DOJ cooperative agreements; arrestees, fugitives, prisoners, and other individuals under custody of the United States Marshals Service (USMS); prisoner health care service providers under the USMS Managed Health Care Contract; and individuals currently or formerly under the custody of the Attorney General and/or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), including those individuals under custody for criminal and civil commitments.
In connection with its investigative duties to recognize and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse relating to Department programs and operations, OIG already maintains records on the following categories of individuals that will be maintained in this system of records:
A. Individuals or entities who are or who have been the subject of investigations conducted by the OIG, including current and former employees of the DOJ; current and former consultants, contractors, and subcontractors with whom the Department and other federal agencies have contracted and their employees; grantees to whom the Department has awarded grants and their employees; and such other individuals or entities whose association with the Department relates to alleged violation(s) of the Department's rules of conduct, the Civil Service merit system, and/or criminal or civil law, which may affect the integrity or physical facilities of the Department.
B. Individuals who are or have been witnesses, complainants, or informants in investigations conducted by the OIG.
C. Individuals or entities who have been identified as potential subjects of or parties to an OIG investigation.
D. Individuals currently or formerly under the custody of the Attorney General and/or BOP and/or USMS.
In connection with its broader oversight responsibilities relating to programs and operations of the Department to recognize and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse, OIG will maintain the following categories of records:
A. All categories of records relevant to JUSTICE/DOJ-001—Accounting Systems for the Department of Justice, 69 FR 31406, 71 FR 142, 75 FR 13575, 82 FR 24147.
B. All categories of records relevant to JUSTICE/OJP-004—Grants Management Information System 53 FR 40526, 66 FR 8425, 82 FR 24147.
C. All categories of records relevant to JUSTICE/USM-005—U.S. Marshals Service Prisoner Processing and Population Management-Prisoner Tracking System (PPM-PTS), 72 FR 33515, 519, 82 FR 24151, 163.
D. All categories of records relevant to JUSTICE/BOP-005—Inmate Central Records System, 67 FR 31371, 77 FR 24982, 81 FR 22639, 82 FR 24147.
E. All categories of records relevant to JUSTICE/JMD-003—Department of Justice Payroll System, 69 FR 107, 72 FR 51663, 82 FR 24151, 158.
F. Department data files required by the DATA Act, including but not limited to sampling of the spending data submitted in accordance with the DATA Act.
G. Department charge card data (for example, travel, purchase, fleet and integrated card transactions).
H. Federal contract actions whose estimated value is $3,000 or more, that may be $3,000 or more, and every modification to such contract actions regardless of dollar value.
I. Single Audit results (for example, results of a financial or compliance audit of recipients of Federal funds) and related Federal award information.
J. BOP medical claim adjudication data.
K. Department employee worker's compensation payment data.
The records within this system of records are sourced from the following: the subjects of investigations; individuals with whom the subjects of investigations are associated; current and former Department officers and employees; Federal, State, local, foreign, and territorial law enforcement and non-law enforcement agencies; private citizens; witnesses; informants; public source materials; medical product and service providers; medical claim processing companies; financial institutions managing Department credit card and payroll information; and the system managers, or individuals acting on a system manager's behalf, for the DOJ systems of records that OIG has legal authorization to collect and maintain as part of its responsibility to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of Department programs and operations to recognize and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected:
A. To another Federal Office of the Inspector General or Federal, state, local, foreign, territorial, or tribal unit of government for the purposes of identifying fraud, waste, abuse, or improper payments related to Federal programs, employees, contractors, grantees, inmates, or beneficiaries. These activities will be conducted under the authorities in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and the DATA Act.
B. To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international) where the information is relevant to the recipient entity's law enforcement responsibilities.
C. Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information,
D. To complainants and/or victims to the extent necessary to provide such persons with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.
E. To any person or entity that the OIG has reason to believe possesses information regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the OIG, to the extent deemed to be necessary by the OIG in order to elicit such information or cooperation from the recipient for use in the performance of an authorized activity.
F. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the OIG determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
G. To an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement, plea bargaining, or in informal discovery proceedings.
H. To the news media and the public, including disclosures pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
I. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
J. To designated officers and employees of Federal, state, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement or detention agencies in connection with the hiring or continued employment of an employee or contractor, where the employee or contractor would occupy or does occupy a position of public trust as a law enforcement officer or detention officer having direct contact with the public or with prisoners or detainees, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the recipient agency's decision.
K. To appropriate officials and employees of a Federal agency or entity that requires information relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
L. To a former employee of the Department for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a Federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
M. To federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international licensing agencies or associations which require information concerning the suitability or eligibility of an individual for a license or permit.
N. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
O. To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
P. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Q. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
R. To a governmental entity lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement, law enforcement intelligence, or national security intelligence information, for such purposes.
S. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.
Records are stored in an electronic form in a framework of computer systems that allows distributed processing of data sets across clusters of computers. Records are stored securely in accordance with applicable executive orders, statutes, and agency implementing recommendations. Electronic records are stored in databases and/or on hard disks, removable storage devices, or other electronic media.
Records in this system of records can be retrieved by name or other identifiers, including but not limited to: The surnames of subjects, witnesses, and/or complainants of an OIG complaint or investigation; social security account number; address; telephone number; OIG-assigned case numbers; taxpayer identification number; health care provider; assigned number given to an individual in custody with USMS; inmate register number; alien registration number; assigned DOJ charge card information; geo-code location (for example, physical addresses converted into geographic coordinates on a map); organizational name; employee payroll identifier; and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS number).
Records in this system are retained and disposed of in accordance with the schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, Job Number N1-060-09-025.
Both electronic and paper records are safeguarded in accordance with appropriate laws, rules, and policies,
Security personnel conduct periodic vulnerability scans using DOJ-approved software to ensure security compliance and security logs are enabled for all computers to assist in troubleshooting and forensic analysis during incident investigations. Users of individual computers can only gain access to the data by a valid user identification authorization and authentication method.
All requests for access to records must be in writing and should be addressed to the System Manager listed above. The envelope and letter should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Access Request.” Alternatively, requests can be emailed to
Although no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the FOIA/Privacy Act Mail Referral Unit, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, or on the Department of Justice website at
More information regarding the Department's procedures for accessing records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR part 16 subpart D, “Protection of Privacy and Access to Individual Records Under the Privacy Act of 1974.”
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained in this system of records must direct their requests to the address indicated in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above. All requests to contest or amend records must be in writing and the envelope and letter should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” All requests must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record. Some information may be exempt from the amendment provisions as described in the “EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM” paragraph, below. An individual who is the subject of a record in this system of records may contest or amend those records that are not exempt. A determination of whether a record is exempt from the amendment provisions will be made after a request is received.
More information regarding the Department's procedures for amending or contesting records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR 16.46, “Requests for Amendment or Correction of Records.”
Individuals may be notified if a record in this system of records pertains to them when the individuals request information utilizing the same procedures as those identified in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above.
The Attorney General plans to exempt this system from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5) and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). In addition, the system has been exempted from subsections (c)(3), (d), and (e)(1) of the Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2). The exemptions will be applied only to the extent that the information in the system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), and/or (k)(2). Rules are in the process of being promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c), and (e), and will be published in the
None.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 27, 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-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground Coal Mines information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR 1732(d). This information collection relates to requirements for mine operators to install proximity detection systems on continuous mining machines. More specifically, the subject regulatory provisions require: the proper certification (initialing and dating—including time) by a qualified individual that the machine-mounted components of the proximity detection system have been checked (§ 75.1732(d)(1)); recording, before the end of the shift, any defects found as a result of the check—including corrective actions and their dates (
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.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2018. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
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,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Respiratory Protection Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 27, 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-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Respiratory Protection Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.134 that assist an employer in protecting the health of workers exposed to airborne contaminants, physical hazards, and biological agents. The Standard contains requirements for program administration; a written respirator-protection program with worksite-specific procedures; respirator selection; worker training; fit testing; medical evaluation; respirator use; respirator cleaning, maintenance, and repair; and other provisions. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 2, 6, and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2018. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Excavation Cave-in Protection System Design Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 27, 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 RegInfo.gov website at
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064 (these are not toll-free numbers), or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authorization for the information collections required in the design of a cave-in protection system that are codified in regulations 29 CFR part 1926, subpart P. Employers in the construction industry and OSHA compliance officers need this information to ensure cave-in protection systems are designed, installed, and used in a manner that adequately protects workers. More specifically, regulations 29 CFR 1926.652 paragraphs (b) and (c) contain paperwork
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.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and 3he DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
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).
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 22, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On November 13, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-OCC-2017-811 (“Advance Notice”) pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the Clearing Supervision Act provides that OCC may implement the changes if it has not received an objection to the proposed changes within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the Commission receives the Advance Notice, or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received,
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act, the Commission may extend the review period of an advance notice for an additional 60 days, if the changes proposed in the advance notice raise novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension.
On January 11, 2018, the Commission requested OCC provide it with additional information regarding the proposal,
A Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on the Proposed Rule Change was published in the
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act, extends the review period for an additional 60 days so that the Commission shall have until May 23, 2018 to issue an objection or non-objection to the Advance Notice (File No. SR-OCC-2017-811).
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Section (a) of Exchange Rule 1001, Position Limits, to increase the position limits for options on the following exchange traded funds (“ETFs”): iShares China Large-Cap ETF (“FXI”), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (“EFA”), iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (“EEM”), iShares Russell 2000 ETF (“IWM”), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (“EWZ”), iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (“TLT”), PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQQ”), and iShares MSCI Japan Index (“EWJ”).
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.
Position limits for options on ETFs such as those subject to this proposal are determined pursuant to Exchange Rule 1001, and, with certain exceptions, vary by tier according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volume of the underlying security.
The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 1001 to increase the position limits for options on certain ETFs, as described more fully below. The Exchange believes that increasing the position limits for these options will lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for these options that will benefit customers interested in these products.
First, the Exchange proposes to increase the position limits for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ, each of which fall into the highest standard tier set forth in Exchange Rule 1001(g)(i). Rule 1001(a) would be amended to increase the current
Second, the Exchange proposes to increase the position limits for options on EEM and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to increase the position limits on options on QQQQ from 900,000 contracts to 1,800,000 contracts.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that the above listed ETFs qualify for either: (i) The initial listing criteria set forth in Exchange Rule 1009 Commentary .06 for ETFs holding non-U.S. component securities; or (ii) for ETFs listed pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depository receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement (“CSA”) is not required.
The Exchange represents that more than 50% of the weight of the securities held by the options subject to this proposal are also subject to a CSA.
Market participants have increased their demand for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ for hedging and trading purposes and the Exchange believes the current position limits are too low and may be a deterrent to successful trading of options on these securities.
The Commission has recently approved a proposed rule change of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) to increase position limits for these same options.
In its proposal, CBOE stated that it had collected the following trading statistics on the ETFs that are subject to this proposal:
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for QQQQ to 1,800,000 contracts, CBOE compared the trading characteristics of QQQQ to that of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), which has no position limits. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through August 14, 2017 for QQQQ was 26.25 million shares compared to 64.63 million shares for SPY. The total shares outstanding for QQQQ are 351.6 million compared to 976.23 million for SPY. The fund market cap for QQQQ is $50,359.7 million compared to $240,540 million
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for EEM and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, CBOE also compared the trading characteristics of EEM and IWM to that of QQQQ, which currently has a position limit of 900,000 contracts. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through July 31, 2017 for EEM was 52.12 million shares and IWM was 27.46 million shares compared to 26.25 million shares for QQQQ. The total shares outstanding for EEM are 797.4 million and for IWM are 253.1 million compared to 351.6 million for QQQQ. The fund market cap for EEM is $34,926.1 million and IWM is $35,809 million compared to $50,359.7 million for QQQQ. EEM, IWM and QQQQ have similar trading characteristics and subjecting EEM and IWM to the proposed higher position limit would continue be designed to address potential manipulate [sic] schemes that may arise from trading in the options and their underlying securities. These above trading characteristics for QQQQ when compared to EEM and IWM also justify increasing the position limit for QQQQ. QQQQ has a higher options ADV than EEM and IWM, a higher numbers [sic] of shares outstanding than IWM and a much higher market cap than EEM and IWM which justify doubling the position limit for QQQQ. CBOE concluded that, based on these statistics, and as stated above, the proposed position limit coupled with QQQQ's trading behavior would continue to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options and trading in the securities underlying the options.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts, CBOE compared the trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ to that of EEM and IWM, both of which currently have a position limit of 500,000 contracts. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through July 31, 2017 for FXI is 15.08 million shares, EFA is 19.42 million shares, EWZ is 17.08 million shares, TLT is 8.53 million shares, and EWJ is 6.06 million shares compared to 52.12 million shares for EEM and 27.46 million shares for IWM. The total shares outstanding for FXI is 78.6 million, EFA is 1178.4 million, EWZ is 159.4 million, TLT is 60 million, and EWJ is 303.6 million compared to 797.4 million for EEM and 253.1 million for IWM. The fund market cap for FXI is $3,343.6 million, EFA is $78,870.3 million, EWZ is $6,023.4 million, TLT is $7,442.4 million, and EWJ is $16,625.1 million compared to $34,926.1 million for EEM and $35,809.1 million for IWM.
In Partial Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change, CBOE provided additional analysis and support for its proposed rule change.
CBOE stated it understood that certain market participants wishing to make trades involving a large number of options contracts in the symbols subject to the proposed rule change are opting to execute those trades in the over-the-counter market, that the over-the counter transactions occur via bi-lateral agreements the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to other market participants, and that therefore, these large trades do not contribute to the price discovery process performed on a lit market. It stated that position limits are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options, and that the potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact are balanced against the potential of setting the limits so low as to discourage participation in the options market. It stated that the level of those position limits must be balanced between curtailing potential manipulation and the cost of preventing potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes.
CBOE observed that the ETFs that underlie options subject to the proposed rule change are highly liquid, and are based on a broad set of highly liquid securities and other reference assets, and noted that the Commission has generally looked through to the liquidity of securities comprising an index in establishing position limits for cash-settled index options. It further noted that options on certain broad-based security indexes have no position limits. CBOE observed that the Commission has recognized the liquidity of the securities comprising the underlying interest of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”) in permitting no position limits on SPY options since 2012,
CBOE stated that the creation and redemption process for these ETFs also lessen the potential for manipulative activity, explaining that when an ETF company wants to create more ETF shares, it looks to an Authorized Participant, which is a market maker or other large financial institution, to acquire the securities the ETF is to hold. For instance, IWM is designed to track the performance of the Russell 2000 Index, the Authorized Participant will purchase all the Russell 2000 constituent securities in the exact same weight as the index, then deliver those shares to the ETF provider. In exchange, the ETF provider gives the Authorized Participant a block of equally valued ETF shares, on a one-for-one fair value basis. The price is based on the net asset value, not the market value at which the ETF is trading. The creation of new ETF units can be conducted all trading day and is not subject to position limits. This process can also work in reverse where the ETF company seeks to decrease the number of shares that are available to trade. The creation and redemption process, therefore, creates a direct link to the underlying components of the ETF, and serves to mitigate potential price impact of the ETF shares that might otherwise result from increased position limits. The ETF creation and redemption seeks to keep ETF share prices trading in line with the ETF's underlying net asset value. Because an ETF trades like a stock, its price will fluctuate during the trading day, due to simple supply and demand. If demand to buy an ETF is high, for instance, the ETF's share price might rise above the value of its underlying
CBOE stated that in proposing the increased position limits, the Exchange considered the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits. For instance, some of the ETFs underlying options subject to the proposed rule change are based on broad-based indices that underlie cash settled options that are economically equivalent to the ETF options that are the subject of the proposed rule change and have no position limits. Other ETFs are based on broad-based indexes that underlie cash-settled options with position limits reflecting notional values that are larger than the current position limits for ETF analogues (EEM, EFA). Where there was no approved index analogue, CBOE stated its belief, based on the liquidity, breadth and depth of the underlying market, that the index referenced by the ETF would be considered a broad-based index.
For example, the PowerShares QQQ Trust or QQQQ is an ETF that tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index or NDX, which is an index composed of 100 of the largest non-financial securities listed on Nasdaq. Options on NDX are currently subject to no position limits but share similar trading characteristics as QQQQ. Based on QQQQ's share price of $154.54
The iShares Russell 2000 ETF or IWM, is an ETF that also tracks the Russell 2000 Index or RUT, which is an index that is composed of 2,000 small-cap domestic companies in the Russell 3000 index. Options on RUT are currently subject to no position limits but share similar trading characteristics as IWM. Based on IWM's share price of $144.77 and RUT's index level of 1,486.88, approximately 10 contracts of IWM equals one contract of RUT. Assume that RUT was subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options under Exchange Rule 24.4(a). Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a positon [sic] limit equivalent to 250,000 contracts for IWM as RUT's analogue. However, RUT is not subject to position limits and has an average daily trading volume of 66,200 contracts. IWM is currently subject to a position limit of 500,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 490,070 contracts. The Commission has approved no position limit for RUT, although it has a much lower average daily trading volume than its analogue, the IWM. Furthermore, RUT currently has a market capitalization of $2.4 trillion and IWM has a market capitalization of $35,809.1 million, and the component securities of RUT, in aggregate, have traded an average of 270 million shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in the IWM. Therefore, CBOE concluded and the Exchange agrees it is reasonable to increase the positon [sic] limit for options on the IWM from 500,000 to 1,000,000 contracts.
EEM tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index or MXEF, which is composed of approximately 800 component securities following 21 emerging market country indices: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey. Based on EEM's share price of $47.06 and MXEF's index level of 1,136.45, approximately 24 contracts of EEM equals one contract of MXEF. MXEF is currently subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options. Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a position limit economically equivalent to 604,000 contracts for EEM as MXEF's analogue. However, MXEF has an average daily trading volume of 180 contracts. EEM is currently subject to a position limit of 500,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 287,357 contracts. Furthermore, MXEF currently has a market capitalization of $5.18 trillion and EEM has a market capitalization of $34,926.1 million, and the component securities of MXEF, in aggregate, have traded an average of 33.6 billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in the EEM. Therefore, based on the comparison of average daily trading volume, CBOE believed and the Exchange agrees that it is reasonable to increase the positon [sic] limit for
EFA tracks the performance of MSCI EAFE Index or MXEA, which has over 900 component securities designed to represent the performance of large and mid-cap securities across 21 developed markets, including countries in Europe, Australasia and the Far East, excluding the U.S. and Canada. Based on EFA's share price of $69.16 and MXEA's index level of 1,986.15, approximately 29 contracts of EFA equals one contract of MXEA. MXEA is currently subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options. Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a positon [sic] limit economically equivalent to 721,000 contracts for EFA as MXEA's analogue. Furthermore, MXEA currently has a market capitalization of $18.7 trillion and EFA has a market capitalization of $78,870.3 million, and the component securities of MXEA, in aggregate, have traded an average of 4.6 billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in the EEM. However, MXEA has an average daily trading volume of 270 contracts. EFA is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 98,844 contracts. Based on the above comparisons, CBOE believed and the Exchange agrees that it is reasonable to increase the positon [sic] limit for options on the EFA from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks. There is currently no index analogue for FXI approved for options trading. However, the FTSE China 50 Index currently has a market capitalization of $1.7 trillion and FXI has a market capitalization of $2,623.18 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in FXI. The components of the FTSE China 50 Index, in aggregate, have an average daily trading volume of 2.3 billion shares. FXI is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 15.08 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, CBOE believed, and that Exchange agrees, that it is reasonable to increase the positon [sic] limit for options on the FXI from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
EWZ tracks the performance of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, which is composed of shares of large and mid-size companies in Brazil. There is currently no index analogue for EWZ approved for options trading. However, the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index currently has a market capitalization of $700 billion and EWZ has a market capitalization of $6,023.4 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in EWZ. The components of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, in aggregate, have an average daily trading volume of 285 million shares. EWZ is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 17.08 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, CBOE believed and the Exchange agrees that it is reasonable to increase the positon [sic] limit for options on the EWZ from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
TLT tracks the performance of ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, which is composed of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. There is currently no index analogue for TLT approved for options trading. However, the U.S. Treasury market is one of the largest and most liquid markets in the world, with over $14 trillion outstanding and turnover of approximately $500 billion per day. TLT currently has a market capitalization of $7,442.4 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in TLT. Therefore, the potential for manipulation will not increase solely due the increase in position limits as set forth in the proposed rule change. Based on the above comparisons, CBOE believed and the Exchange agrees it is reasonable to increase the positon [sic] limit for options on the TLT from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
EWJ tracks the MSCI Japan Index, which tracks the performance of large and mid-sized companies in Japan. There is currently no index analogue for EWJ approved for options trading. However, the MSCI Japan Index has a market capitalization of $3.5 trillion and EWJ has a market capitalization of $16,625.1 million, and the component securities of the MSCI Japan Index, in aggregate, have traded an average of 1.1 billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in EWJ. EWJ is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts and has an average daily trading volume of 6.6 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, CBOE believed and the Exchange agrees that it is reasonable to increase the positon [sic] limit for options on EWJ from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
Phlx has reviewed the CBOE analysis set forth above. On the basis of that analysis Phlx believes that market participants' trading activity could be adversely impacted by the current position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT and EWJ and such limits may cause options trading in these symbols to move from exchanges to the over-the-counter market. The above trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT and EWJ are either similar to those of EEM and IWM or sufficiently active so that the proposed limit would continue to address potential manipulation that may arise. Specifically, EFA has far more shares outstanding and a larger fund market cap than EEM, IWM, and QQQQ. EWJ has more shares outstanding than IWM and only slightly fewer shares outstanding than QQQQ.
On the other hand, while FXI, EWZ and TLT do not exceed EEM, IWM or QQQQ in any of the specified areas, they are all actively trading so that market participants' trading activity has been impacted by them being restricted by the current position limits. The Exchange believes that the trading activity and these securities being based on a broad basket of underlying securities alleviates concerns as to any potential manipulative activity that may arise. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, the Exchange's existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange, at other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity.
On the basis of CBOE's analysis Phlx also believes that market participants' trading activity could be adversely impacted by the current position limits for EEM, IWM and QQQQ. As discussed above, EEM, IWM and QQQQ have similar trading characteristics. Subjecting EEM and IWM to the proposed higher position limit would continue be designed to address potential manipulate [sic] schemes that may arise from trading in the options and their underlying securities. The trading characteristics for QQQQ described above, when compared to EEM and IWM, also justify increasing the position limit for QQQQ. QQQQ has a higher options ADV than EEM and IWM, a higher numbers [sic] of shares
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limits for the options subject to this proposal would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for these options, which will benefit customers interested in this product. Under the proposal, the reporting requirement for the above options would be unchanged. Thus, the Exchange would still require that each member and member organization that maintains a position in the options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information would include, but would not be limited to, the options' position, whether such position is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge, and the collateral used to carry the position, if applicable. Registered option traders (“ROTs”) and specialists would continue to be exempt from this reporting requirement, as ROT and specialist information can be accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. In addition, the general reporting requirement for customer accounts that maintain an aggregate position of 200 or more options contracts would remain at this level for the options subject to this proposal.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight inspections of the Exchange's regulatory programs by the Commission have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted. These procedures utilize daily monitoring of market movements via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and underlying stocks.
Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.
The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a member organization or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large un-hedged position in the options subject to this proposal. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a member organization must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The current position limits for the options subject to this proposal have inhibited the ability of ROTs and specialists to make markets on the Exchange. Specifically, the proposal is designed to encourage ROTs and specialists to shift liquidity from over the counter markets onto the Exchange, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The proposal will also benefit institutional investors as well as retail traders, and public customers, by providing them with a more effective trading and hedging vehicle. In addition, the Exchange believes that the structure of the ETFs subject to this proposal and the considerable liquidity of the market for options on those ETFs diminishes the opportunity to manipulate this product and disrupt the underlying market that a lower position limit may protect against.
Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such as that proposed herein, is not novel and has been previously approved by the Commission. For example, the Commission has previously approved, on a pilot basis, eliminating position limits for certain options.
Last, the Commission has expressed the belief that removing position and exercise limits may bring additional depth and liquidity without increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities.
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. On the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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.
To be published.
Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields of the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rules 307, Position Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, and 309, Exercise Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, to increase the position and exercise limits for options on the following exchange traded funds (“ETFs”): iShares China Large-Cap ETF (“FXI”), iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (“EEM”), iShares Russell 2000 ETF (“IWM”), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (“EFA”), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (“EWZ”), iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (“TLT”), PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQ”), and iShares MSCI Japan ETF (“EWJ”).
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 Exchange Rules 307, Position Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, and 309, Exercise Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, to increase position and exercise limits, respectively, for options on the following ETFs: FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ, EWJ.
Market participants' trading activity has been adversely impacted by the current position limits as such limits have caused options trading in the symbols subject to this proposal to move from exchanges to the over-the-counter market. The Exchange submits this proposal with the understanding that market participants' on-exchange activity has been hindered by the existing position limits, causing them to be unable to provide additional liquidity not just on the Exchange, but also on other options exchanges on which they participate.
Position limits are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact are balanced against the potential of setting the limits so low as to discourage participation in the options market. The level of those position limits must be balanced between curtailing potential manipulation and the cost of preventing potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes. Position limits for options on ETFs, such as those subject to this proposal are determined pursuant to Exchange Rule 307, and vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volume of the underlying stocks or ETFs over the past six-months. The Exchange notes that the ETFs that underlie options subject to this proposal are highly liquid, and are based on a broad set of highly liquid securities and other reference assets. Likewise, the Commission has recognized the liquidity of the securities comprising the underlying interest of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”) in permitting no position limits on SPY options since 2012,
The largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded stocks and ETFs have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization stocks and ETFs have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. Options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ are currently subject to the standard position limit of 250,000 contracts, as set forth in Exchange Rule 307. Interpretation and Policy .01 of Exchange Rule 307 sets forth separate position limits for options on specific ETFs as follows:
• Options on EEM are 500,000 contracts;
• Options on IWM are 500,000 contracts; and
• Options on QQQ are 900,000 contracts.
Interpretation and Policy .01 of Exchange Rule 307 also sets forth separate position limits for options on SPY (no limit) and options on DIA (300,000 contracts). However, the Exchange is not proposing to modify the position limits for options on SPY or DIA.
The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rules 307, Position Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01, and 309, Exercise Limits, Interpretations and Policies .01 to double the position and exercise limits for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ, and EWJ. As such, options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ would no longer be subject to the standard position and exercise limits as set forth under Exchange Rules 307 and 309. Accordingly, Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 307 and Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 309 would be amended to set forth that the position and exercise limits for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ would be 500,000 contracts. These position and exercise limits equal the current position and exercise limits for options on IWM and EEM and are similar to the current position and exercise limits for options on QQQ, as set forth in Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 307 and Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 309.
Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 307 and Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 309 would be further amended to increase the position and exercise limits for the remaining options subject to this proposal as follows:
• The position and exercise limits for options on EEM would be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts;
• The position and exercise limits for options on IWM would be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts; and
• The position and exercise limits for options on QQQ would be increased from 900,000 contracts to 1,800,000 contracts.
The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”), which seeks to increase the position and exercise limits for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQ, and EWJ which was filed by Cboe on August, 15, 2017.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that the above-listed ETFs qualify for either: (i) The initial listing criteria set forth in Exchange Rule 402(i)(E)(2) for ETFs holding non-U.S. component securities; or (ii) for ETFs listed pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depository receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement (“CSA”) is not required.
FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks.
MIAX Options represents that more than 50% of the weight of the securities held by the options subject to this proposal are also subject to a CSA.
In support of this proposal, the following trading statistics have been compiled.
The Exchange believes that the liquidity in the underlying ETFs, and the liquidity in the ETF options support its request to increase the position limits for the options subject to this proposal. As to the underlying ETF shares, through July 31, 2017, the year-to-date average daily trading volume was:(i) FXI across all exchanges was 15.08 million shares; (ii) EEM across all exchanges was 52.12 million shares;(iii) IWM across all exchanges was 27.46 million shares; (iv) EFA across all exchanges was 19.42 million shares;(v) EWZ across all exchanges was 17.08 million shares; (vi) TLT across all exchanges was 8.53 million shares;(vii) QQQ across all exchanges was 26.25 million shares; and (vii) EWJ across all exchanges was 6.06 million shares.
In proposing the increased position limits, the Exchange considered the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits. For instance, some of the ETFs underlying options subject to this proposal are based on broad-based indices that underlie cash settled options that are economically equivalent to the ETF options that are the subject of this proposal and have no position limits. Other ETFs are based on broad-based indexes that underlie cash-settled options with position limits reflecting notional values that are larger than the current position limits for ETF analogues (EEM, EFA). Where there was no approved index analogue, the Exchange believes, based on the liquidity, breadth and depth of the underlying market, that the index referenced by the ETF would be considered a broad-based index.
For example, the PowerShares QQQ Trust or QQQ is an ETF that tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index or NDX, which is an index composed of 100 of the largest non-financial securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”). Options on NDX are currently subject to no position limits but share similar trading characteristics as QQQ.
The iShare [sic] Russell 2000 ETF or IWM, is an ETF that also tracks the Russell 2000 index or RUT, which is an index composed of 2,000 small-cap domestic companies in the Russell 3000 index. Options on RUT are currently subject to no position limits but share similar trading characteristics as IWM.
EEM tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index or MXEF, which is composed of approximately 800 component securities following 21 emerging market country indices: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey. Below makes the same notional value comparisons as made above. Based on EEM's share price of $47.06 and MXEF's index level of 1,136.45, approximately 24 contracts of EEM equals one contract of MXEF. Assume that MXEF was subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options under Exchange Rule 1804(a). Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a position limit economically equivalent to 604,000 contracts for EEM as MXEF's
EFA tracks the performance of the MSCI EAFE Index or MXEA, which has over 900 component securities designed to represent the performance of large and mid-cap securities across 21 developed markets, including countries in Europe, Australia and the Far East, excluding the U.S. and Canada. Below makes the same notional value comparison as made above. Based on EFA's share price of $69.16 and MXEA's index level of 1,986.15, approximately 29 contracts of EFA equals one contract of MXEA. Assume MXEA was subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options under Exchange Rule 1804(a). Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a position limit economically equivalent to 721,000 contracts for EFA as MXEA's analogue. Furthermore, MXEA currently has a market capitalization of $18.7 trillion and EFA has a market capitalization of $78,870.3 million, and the component securities of MXEA, in aggregate, have traded an average of 4.6 billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in EFA. However, MXEA has an average daily trading volume of 270 contracts. EFA is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 98,844 contracts. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the EFA from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks. There is currently no index analogue for FXI approved for options trading. However, the FTSE China 50 Index currently has a market capitalization of $1.7 trillion and FXI has a market capitalization of $2,623.18 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement caused by a large trade in FXI. The components of the FTSE China 50 Index, in aggregate, have an average daily trading volume of 2.3 billion shares. FXI is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 15.08 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the FXI from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
EWZ tracks the performance of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, which is composed of shares of large and mid-size companies in Brazil. There is currently no index analogue for EWZ approved for options trading. However, the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index currently has a market capitalization of $700 billion and EWZ has a market capitalization of $6,023.4 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement caused by a large trade in EWZ. The components of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, in aggregate, have an average daily trading volume of 285 million shares. EWZ is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 17.08 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the EWZ from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
TLT tracks the performance of ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, which is composed of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. There is currently no index analogue for TLT approved for options trading. However, the U.S. Treasury market is one of the largest and most liquid markets in the world, with over $14 trillion outstanding and turnover of approximately $500 billion per day. TLT currently has a market capitalization of $7,442.4 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement caused by a large trade in TLT. Therefore, the potential for manipulation will not increase solely due to the increase in position limits as set forth in this proposal. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on TLT from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
EWJ tracks the MSCI Japan Index, which tracks the performance of large and mid-sized companies in Japan. There is currently no index analogue for EWJ approved for options trading. However, the MSCI Japan Index has a market capitalization of $3.5 trillion and EWJ has a market capitalization of $16,625.1 million, and the component securities of the MSCI Japan Index, in aggregate, have traded an average of 1.1 billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement caused by a large trade in EWJ. EWJ is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts and has an average daily trading volume of 6.6 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on EWJ from 250,000 to 500,000.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limits for the options subject to this proposal would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for these options, which will benefit customers interested in these products. Under the proposal, the reporting requirement for the above options would be unchanged. Thus, the Exchange would still require that each Member that maintains a position in the options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, to report certain information to the Exchange. This information would include, but would not be limited to, the options' position, whether such position is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge, and the collateral used to carry the position, if applicable. Exchange Market Makers
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight inspections of the Exchange's regulatory programs by the Commission have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted. These procedures utilize
The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a Member or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large un-hedged position in the options subject to this proposal. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a Member must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such as that proposed herein, is not novel and has been previously approved by the Commission. For example, the Commission has previously approved, on a pilot basis, eliminating position limits for options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”).
Furthermore, the proposed position limits set forth in this proposal would continue to address potential manipulative activity while allowing for potential hedging activity for appropriate economic purposes. The creation and redemption process for these ETFs also lessens the potential for manipulative activity. When an ETF company wants to create more ETF shares, it looks to an Authorized Participant, which is a market maker or other large financial institution, to acquire the securities the ETF is to hold. For instance, IWM is designed to track the performance of the Russell 2000 Index, the Authorized Participant will purchase all the Russell 2000 constituent securities in the exact same weight as the index, then deliver those shares to the ETF provider. In exchange, the ETF provider gives the Authorized Participant a block of equally valued ETF shares, on a one-for-one fair value basis. The price is based on the net asset value, not the market value at which the ETF is trading. The creation of new ETF units can be conducted all trading day and is not subject to position limits. This process can also work in reverse where the ETF company seeks to decrease the number of shares that are available to trade. The creation and redemption process, therefore, creates a direct link to the underlying components of the ETF, and serves to mitigate potential price impact of the ETF shares that might otherwise result from increased position limits.
The ETF creation and redemption seeks to keep ETF share prices trading in line with the ETF's underlying net asset value. Because an ETF trades like a stock, its price will fluctuate during the trading day, due to simple supply and demand. If demand to buy an ETF is high, for instance, the ETF's share price might rise above the value of its underlying securities. When this happens, the Authorized Participant believes the ETF may now be overpriced, and can buy the underlying shares that compose the ETF and then sell the ETF shares on the open market. This should help drive the ETF's share price back toward fair value. Likewise,
Lastly, the Commission expressed the belief that removing position and exercise limits may bring additional depth and liquidity without increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities.
MIAX Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the entire proposal is consistent with Section (6)(b)(8) of the Act
In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to changes put in place at Cboe. MIAX Options believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to establish uniform position limits for additional multiply listed option classes.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to provide an additional mechanism for executing brokers to submit Frequent Trader IDs post-trade.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide an additional mechanism for executing brokers to submit Frequent Trader IDs (“FTIDs”) post-trade. By way of background, to participate in the Frequent Trader Program, Customers (includes Professional Customers and Voluntary Professionals) may register with the Exchange. Once registered, the Customer is provided a unique identification number (“FTID”) that can be affixed to each of its orders. The FTID allows the Exchange to identify and aggregate all electronic and manual trades during both the Regular Trading Hours and Extended Trading Hours sessions from that Customer for purposes of determining whether the Customer meets any of the various volume thresholds. The Customer has to provide its FTID to the Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) submitting that Customer's order to the Exchange (“executing agent” or “executing TPH”) and that executing TPH would have to enter the Customer's FTID on each of that Customer's orders. The Exchange notes that there are instances however, in which a Customer's FTID was not, or could not be, affixed to an order. As such, the Exchange provides executing TPHs the ability to submit to the exchange a form (the “Frequent Trader Program—Volume Corrections Form” or “Form”) as a mechanism for executing TPHs to identify transactions to the Exchange that should have been, but were not, associated with particular FTIDs. The Form needs to be submitted to the Exchange within 3 business days. Transactions identified on the Form only count towards the identified Customer's volume if that Customer was already registered for the Frequent Trader Program prior to the time the transaction occurred (
Effective March 19, 2018, a new FTID field will be available on Cboe Trade Match (“CTM”) terminals. This enhancement will allow executing TPHs to add or modify FTID information on post-trade records on the trade date. TPHs that require FTID modifications on trade records which occurred on past business days, limited to within the last 3 business days, must continue to submit these changes using the Form described above. The Exchange notes that the FTID field may be changed by the TPH via the CTM terminal without notice to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the enhanced functionality will provide an additional means to input FTID information and provide a more efficient and streamlined way to add or modify FTID information post-trade on the trade date.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes adding system functionality to enable executing TPHs to input FTIDs post-trade on the trade date through CTM, instead of using a manual Form, provides TPHs with a more efficient mechanism to ensure a Customer's FTID that was not, or could not be, affixed to an order, is attributed to that Customer's order and gets timely reported, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to allow FTIDs to be submitted post-trade on the trade date via Exchange system functionality will provide a more efficient means for TPHs to submit this information and is not intended for competitive reasons and only applies to Cboe Options. The Exchange also notes that no rights or obligations of Permit Holders are affected by the change.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 3120 (Position Limits) to increase the position limits for options on the following exchange traded funds (“ETFs”): iShares China Large-Cap ETF (“FXI”), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (“EFA”), iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (“EEM”), iShares Russell 2000 ETF (“IWM”), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (“EWZ”), iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (“TLT”), PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQQ”), and iShares MSCI Japan ETF (“EWJ”). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included
The Exchange proposes to amend IM-3120-2 to BOX Rule 3120 (Position Limits) to increase the position limits for options on the following exchange trade funds (“ETFs”): iShares China Large-Cap ETF (“FXI”), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (“EFA”), iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (“EEM”), iShares Russell 2000 ETF (“IWM”), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (“EWZ”), iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (“TLT”), PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQQ”), and iShares MSCI Japan ETF (“EWJ”).This is a competitive filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange Incorporated (“CBOE”) and approved by the Commission.
Position limits are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact are balanced against the potential of setting the limits so low as to discourage participation in the options market. The level of those position limits must be balanced between curtailing potential manipulation and the cost of preventing potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes. Position limits for options on ETFs, such as those subject to this proposal, are determined pursuant to BOX Rule 3120, and vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volume of the underlying stocks or ETFs over the past six-months. Pursuant to BOX Rule 3120, the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded stocks and ETFs have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization stocks and ETFs have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. Options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ are currently subject to the standard position limit of 250,000 contracts as set forth in BOX Rule 3120.
• Options on EEM are 500,000 contracts;
• Options on IWM are 500,000 contracts; and
• Options on QQQQ are 900,000 contracts.
The purpose of this proposal is to amend IM-3120-2 to BOX Rule 3120 to double the position and exercise limits for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, QQQQ, and EWJ.
• The position limits for options on EEM would be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts;
• The position limits on options on IWM would be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts; and
• The position limits on options on QQQQ would be increased from 900,000 contracts to 1,800,000 contracts.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that the above listed ETFs qualify for either: (i) The initial listing criteria set forth in Exchange Rule 5020(h)(2) for ETFs holding non-U.S. component securities; or (ii) for ETFs listed pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depository receipts and index fund shares based on international or global indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance agreement (“CSA”) is not required.
BOX represents that more than 50% of the weight of the securities held by the options subject to this proposal are also subject to a CSA.
According to CBOE, market participants have increased their demand for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ for hedging and trading purposes and the Exchange believes the current position limits are too low and may be a deterrent to successful trading of options on these securities.
The following analysis was conducted by CBOE in support of its proposal. BOX agrees with CBOE's analysis discussed below.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for QQQQ to 1,800,000 contracts, CBOE compared the trading characteristics of QQQQ to that of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), which has no position limits. As shown in CBOE's above table, the average daily trading volume through August 14, 2017 for QQQQ was 26.25 million shares compared to 64.63 million shares for SPY. The total shares outstanding for QQQQ are 351.6 million compared to 976.23 million for SPY. The fund market cap for QQQQ is $50,359.7 million compared to $240,540 million for SPY. SPY is one of the most actively trading ETFs and is, therefore, subject to no position limits. QQQQ is also very actively traded, and while not to the level of SPY, should be subject to the proposed higher position limits based its trading characteristics when compared to SPY. The proposed position limit coupled with QQQQ's trading behavior would continue to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options and trading in its [sic] underlying the options.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for EEM and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, CBOE also compared the trading characteristics of EEM and IWM to that of QQQQ, which currently has a position limit of 900,000 contracts. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through July 31, 2017 for EEM was 52.12 million shares and IWM was 27.46 million shares compared to 26.25 million shares for QQQQ. The total shares outstanding for EEM are 797.4 million and for IWM are 253.1 million compared to 351.6 million for QQQQ. The fund market cap for EEM is $34,926.1 million and IWM is $35,809 million compared to $50,359.7 million for QQQQ. EEM, IWM and QQQQ have similar trading characteristics and subjecting EEM and IWM to the proposed higher position limit would continue be designed to address potential manipulate [sic] schemes that may arise from trading in the options and their underlying securities. These above trading characteristics for QQQQ when compared to EEM and IWM also justify increasing the position limit for QQQQ. QQQQ has a higher options ADV than EEM and IWM, a higher numbers [sic] of shares outstanding than IWM and a much higher market cap than EEM and IWM which justify doubling the position limit for QQQQ. Based on these statistics, and as stated above, the proposed position limit coupled with QQQQ's trading behavior would continue to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options and trading in the securities underlying the options.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts, CBOE compared the trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT and EWJ to that of EEM and IWM, both of which currently have a position limit of 500,000 contracts. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through July 31, 2017 for FXI is 15.08 million shares, EFA is 19.42 million shares, EWZ is 17.08 million shares, TLT is 8.53 million shares, and EWJ is 6.06 million shares compared to 52.12 million shares for EEM and 27.46 million shares for IWM. The total shares outstanding for FXI is 78.6 million, EFA is 1178.4 million, EWZ is 159.4 million, TLT is 60 million and EWJ is 303.6 million compared to 797.4 million for EEM and 253.1 million for IWM. The fund market cap for FXI is $3,343.6 million, EFA is $78,870.3 million, EWZ is $6,023.4 million, TLT is $7,442.4 million,, and EWJ is $16,625.1 million compared to $34,926.1 million for EEM and $35,809.1 million for IWM. The above trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT and EWJ is either similar to that of EEM and IWM or sufficiently active enough so that the proposed limit would continue to address potential manipulative [sic] that may arise. EFA has far more shares outstanding and a larger fund market cap than EEM, IWM, and QQQQ. EWJ has a more shares outstanding than IWM and only slightly less shares outstanding than QQQQ.
On the other hand, while FXI, EWZ, and TLT do not exceed EEM, IWM or QQQQ is any of the specified areas, they are all actively trading so that market participant's trading activity has been impacted by them being restricted by the current position limits. The Exchange believes that the trading activity and these securities being based on a broad basket of underlying
According to CBOE, market participants' trading activity has been adversely impacted by the current position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, and EWJ and such limits have caused options trading in these symbols to move from exchanges to the over-the-counter market. The Exchange understands that certain market participants wishing to make trades involving a large number of options contracts in the symbols subject to the proposal are opting to execute those trades in the over-the-counter market. The over-the-counter transactions occur via bi-lateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to other market participants. Therefore, these large trades do not contribute to the price discovery process performed on a lit market.
The Exchange notes that the ETFs that underlie options subject to this proposal are highly liquid, and are based on a broad set of highly liquid securities and other reference assets.
The proposed position limits set forth in the proposal would continue to address potential manipulative activity while allowing for potential hedging activity for appropriate economic purposes. The creation and redemption process for these ETFs also lessen the potential for manipulative activity. When an ETF company wants to create more ETF shares, it looks to an Authorized Participant, which is a market maker or other large financial institution, to acquire the securities the ETF is to hold. For instance, IWM is designed to track the performance of the Russell 2000 Index, the Authorized Participant will purchase all the Russell 2000 constituent securities in the exact same weight as the index, then deliver those shares to the ETF provider. In exchange, the ETF provider gives the Authorized Participant a block of equally valued ETF shares, on a one-for-one fair value basis. The price is based on the net asset value, not the market value at which the ETF is trading. The creation of new ETF units can be conducted all trading day and is not subject to position limits. This process can also work in reverse where the ETF company seeks to decrease the number of shares that are available to trade. The creation and redemption process, therefore, creates a direct link to the underlying components of the ETF, and serves to mitigate potential price impact of the ETF shares that might otherwise result from increased position limits.
The ETF creation and redemption seeks to keep ETF share prices trading in line with the ETF's underlying net asset value. Because an ETF trades like a stock, its price will fluctuate during the trading day, due to simple supply and demand. If demand to buy an ETF is high, for instance, the ETF's share price might rise above the value of its underlying securities. When this happens, the Authorized Participant believes the ETF may now be overpriced, and can buy the underlying shares that compose the ETF and then sell ETF shares on the open market. This should help drive the ETF's share price back toward fair value. Likewise, if the ETF starts trading at a discount to the securities it holds, the Authorized Participant can buy shares of the ETF and redeem them for the underlying securities. Buying undervalued ETF shares should drive the price of the ETF back toward fair value. This arbitrage process helps to keep an ETF's price in line with the value of its underlying portfolio.
Some of the ETFs underlying options subject to the proposal are based on broad-based indices that underlie cash settled options that are economically equivalent to the ETF options that are the subject of the proposal and have no position limits. Other ETFs are based on broad-based indexes that underlie cash-settled options with position limits reflecting notional values that are larger than the current position limits for ETF analogues (EEM, EFA). Where there was no approved index analogue, the Exchange believes, based on the liquidity, breadth and depth of the underlying market, that the index referenced by the ETF would be considered a broad-based index.
For example, the PowerShares QQQ Trust or QQQQ is an ETF that tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index or NDX, which is an index composed of 100 of the largest non-financial securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”). Options on NDX are currently subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options but share similar trading characteristics as QQQQ.
The iShare [sic] Russell 2000 ETF or IWM, is an ETF that also tracks the Russell 2000 Index or RUT, which is an index that composed of 2,000 small-cap domestic companies in the Russell 3000 index. Options on RUT are currently subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options but share similar trading characteristics as IWM.
EEM tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index or MXEF, which is composed of approximately 800 component securities following 21 emerging market country indices: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey. Below makes the same notional value comparison as made above. Based on EEM's share price of $47.06 and MXEF's index level of 1,136.45, approximately 24 contracts of EEM equals one contract of MXEF. MXEF is currently subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options under BOX Rule 6040(a). Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a position limit economically equivalent to 604,000 contracts for EEM as MXEF's analogue. However, MXEF has an average daily trading volume of 180 contracts. EEM is currently subject to a position limit of 500,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 287,357 contracts. Furthermore, MXEF currently has a market capitalization of $5.18 trillion and EEM has a market capitalization of $34,926.1 million, and the component securities of MXEF, in aggregate, have traded an average of 33.6 billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in the EEM. Therefore, based on the comparison of average daily trading volume, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the EEM from 500,000 to 1,000,000 contracts.
EFA tracks the performance of MSCI EAFE Index or MXEA, which has over 900 component securities designed to represent the performance of large and mid-cap securities across 21 developed markets, including countries in Europe, Australasia and the Far East, excluding the U.S. and Canada. Below makes the same notional value comparison as made above. Based on EFA's share price of $69.16 and MXEA's index level of 1,986.15, approximately 29 contracts of EFA equals one contract of MXEA. MXEA is currently subject to the standard position limit of 25,000 contracts for broad-based index options under BOX Rule 6040(a). Based on the above comparison of notional values, this would result in a position limit economically equivalent to 721,000 contracts for EFA as MXEA's analogue. Furthermore, MXEA currently has a market capitalization of $18.7 trillion and EFA has a market capitalization of $78,870.3 million, and the component securities of MXEA, in aggregate, have traded an average of 4.6 billion shares per day in 2017, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in the EEM. However, MXEA has an average daily trading volume of 270 contracts. EFA is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 98,844 contracts. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the EFA from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks. There is currently no index analogue for FXI approved for options trading. However, the FTSE China 50 Index currently has a market capitalization of $1.7 trillion and FXI has a market capitalization of $2,623.18 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in FXI. The components of the FTSE China 50 Index, in aggregate, have an average daily trading volume of 2.3 billion shares. FXI is currently subject to a position limit of 000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 15.08 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the FXI from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
EWZ tracks the performance of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, which is composed of shares of large and mid-size companies in Brazil. There is currently no index analogue for EWZ approved for options trading. However, the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index currently has a market capitalization of $700 billion and EWZ has a market capitalization of $6,023.4 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in EWZ. The components of the MSCI Brazil 25/50 Index, in aggregate, have an average daily trading volume of 285 million shares. EWZ is currently subject to a position limit of 250,000 contracts but has a much higher average daily trading volume of 17.08 million shares. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the EWZ from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
TLT tracks the performance of ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, which is composed of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. There is currently no index analogue for TLT approved for options trading. However, the U.S. Treasury market is one of the largest and most liquid markets in the world, with over $14 trillion outstanding and turnover of approximately $500 billion per day. TLT currently has a market capitalization of $7,442.4 million, both large enough to absorb any price movement cause by a large trade in TLT. Therefore, the potential for manipulation will not increase solely due the increase in position limits as set forth in this proposal. Based on the above comparisons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the position limit for options on the TLT from 250,000 to 500,000 contracts.
EWJ tracks the MSCI Japan Index, which tracks the performance of large and mid-sized companies in Japan. There is currently no index analogue for
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limits for the options subject to this proposal would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for these options, which will benefit customers interested in this product. Under the proposal, the reporting requirement for the above options would be unchanged. Thus, the Exchange would still require that each BOX Participant that maintains a position in the options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information would include, but would not be limited to, the options' position, whether such position is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge, and the collateral used to carry the position, if applicable. Exchange Market Makers
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight inspections of the Exchange's regulatory programs by the Commission have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted. These procedures utilize daily monitoring of market movements via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and underlying stocks.
Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.
The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a BOX Participant or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large un-hedged position in the options subject to this proposal. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a BOX Participant must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its customer.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such as that proposed herein, is not novel and has been previously approved by the Commission. For example, the Commission has previously approved, on a pilot basis, eliminating position limits for options on SPY.
Lastly, the Commission expressed the belief that removing position and exercise limits may bring additional depth and liquidity without increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general.
Further, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by CBOE that was recently approved by the Commission.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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.
The Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission will meet on April 27th, 2018.
The meeting will take place via teleconference on April 27th, 2018 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern time.
The teleconference call-in number is toll-free 877-336-1831, passcode 6472335, and will have a limited number of lines for members of the public to access from anywhere in the United States. Callers will hear instructions for using the passcode and joining the call after dialing the toll-free number noted. Members of the public wishing to participate in the teleconference must contact the OES officer in charge as noted in the
Elana Mendelson, Office of Marine Conservation. Telephone (202) 647-1073, email address
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is given that the Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) will meet on the date and time noted above. The panel consists of members from the states of Alaska and Washington who represent the broad range of fishing and conservation interests in anadromous and ecologically related species in the North Pacific. Certain members also represent relevant state and regional authorities. The panel was established in 1992 to advise the U.S. Section of the NPAFC on research needs and priorities for anadromous species, such as salmon, and ecologically related species occurring in the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. The upcoming Panel meeting will focus on a review of the agenda for the 2018 annual meeting of the NPAFC (May 21-25, 2018; Khabarovsk, Russia). Background material is available from the point of contact noted above and by visiting
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 Katibat al-Imam al-Bukhari, also known as Imam Bukhori Jamaat, also known as Imam Bukhari Battalion, also known as Imam Bukhari Jamaat, also known as Imam Al-Bukhari Battalion, also known as IBB, also known as Imom Buxoriy Katibasi, also known as KIB, also known as Imam al-Bukhoriy Brigade, also known as Katibatul Imom al-Buxoriy, 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
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
As part of its regular business meeting held on March 8, 2018, in State College, Pennsylvania, the Commission took the following actions: (1) Approved or tabled the applications of certain water resources projects; and (2) took additional actions, as set forth in the
March 8, 2018.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: 717-238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: 717-238-2436;
In addition to the actions taken on projects identified in the summary above and the listings below, the following items were also presented or acted upon at the business meeting: (1) Presentation of the Commission's Maurice K. Goddard Award for Excellence by a Water Management Professional to Mr. Mark Hartle; (2) adoption of a budget reconciliation for the 2019 fiscal year; (3) approval of two agreements and authorization of the Executive Director to spend $300,000 from the Commission's Water Management Fund to complete the Billmeyer Quarry consumptive use mitigation site characterization and testing, including payment to the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority of $75,000; (4) adoption of final rules pertaining to the amendment of Commission regulations to codify and strengthen the Commission's Access to Records Policy; and (5) approval of a request from South Middleton Township Municipal Authority to waive the deadline for submittal of its groundwater withdrawal renewal application.
The Commission approved the following project applications:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Commission tabled action on the following project applications:
1.
2.
3.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information is used to determine if applicants satisfy requirements for obtaining a launch license to protect the public from risks associated with reentry operations from a site not operated by or situated on a Federal launch range.
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of availability.
The FAA, Western Service Area is issuing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the Categorical Exclusion/Record of Decision (CATEX/ROD) for the Proposed West Flow Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Procedures at Phoenix Sky Harbor
Marina Landis, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547 (206) 231-2238 or
The FAA is proposing to amend the west flow RNAV SID procedures from Runways 25 Left, 25 Right and 26 at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix, Arizona. The proposed amendments are consistent with the resolution of the parties as stipulated in the Memorandum Regarding Implementation of the Court Order, jointly negotiated following the court's August 29, 2017, Order in
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The Information to be collected is necessary to insure the safety of the flying public. Documentation of maintenance repair actions record the who, what, when, where and how of the task performed. All maintenance actions as well as documentation are required by Title 14 CFR part 43. This insures proper certification of personnel; proper tooling is utilized and accurate measures to insure safety. FAA reviewed 142,652 form 337s in 2017 with 316,175 aircraft registrations filed in 2017. Each form 337 takes approximately .5 hours.
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177
Barbara Hall by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected includes data required for
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information will determine if applicant proposals for conducting commercial space launches can be accomplished according to regulations issued by the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information collected is required from aircraft operators who wish to obtain a unique authorization code for transmitting information to the International Registry in Dublin, Ireland. An estimated 30 minutes is required to complete the only form in the collection, AC Form 8050-135.
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
The Convention on International Interest in Mobile Equipment, as modified by the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (herein after the Cape Town Treaty or Treaty), provides for the creation and sustainment of the International Registry. The International Registry is an electronic registry system that works in tandem with the current system operated by the FAA Civil Aviation Registry (Registry) for the United States. Congress has designated the Registry as the exclusive United States Entry Point for transmissions to the International Registry. To transmit certain types of interests or prospective interests to the International Registry, interested parties must file a completed FAA Entry Point Filing Form—International Registry, AC Form 8050-135, with the Registry. Upon receipt of the completed form, the Registry, upon verifying the accuracy of the submitted data, issues the unique authorization code.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of BTS requiring certificated air carriers to preserve accounting records, consumer complaint letters, reservation reports and records, system reports of aircraft movements, etc. Also, public charter operators and overseas military personnel charter operators are required to retain certain contracts, invoices, receipts, bank records and reservation records.
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4406, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or Email
You may access comments received for this notice at
Not only is it imperative that carriers and charter operators retain source documentation, but it is critical that DOT has access to these records. Given DOT's established information needs for such reports, the underlying support documentation must be retained for a reasonable period of time. Absent the retention requirements, the support for such reports may or may not exist for audit/validation purposes and the relevance and usefulness of the carrier submissions would be impaired, since the data could not be verified to the source on a test basis.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of BTS requiring U.S. large certificated air carriers to submit two true and complete copies of its annual audit that is made by an independent public accountant. If a carrier does not have an annual audit, the carrier must file a statement that no audit has been performed. Comments are requested concerning whether (1) the audit reports are needed by BTS and DOT; (2) BTS accurately estimated the reporting burden; (3) there are other ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (4) there are ways to minimize reporting burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 by any of the following methods:
You may access comments received for this notice at
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need and usefulness of BTS collecting reports from air carriers on the aggregated indebtedness balance of a political candidate or party for Federal office. The reports are required when the aggregated indebtedness is over $5,000 on the last day of a month.
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 by any of the following methods:
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Street SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4406.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need and usefulness of BTS collecting supplemental data for the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Comments are requested concerning whether (1) the supplemental reports are needed by BTS to fulfill the United States treaty obligation of furnishing financial and traffic reports to ICAO; (2) BTS accurately estimated the reporting burden; (3) there are other ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (4) there are ways to minimize reporting
Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 OMB Approval No. 2138-0039 by any of the following methods:
An electronic copy of this rule, a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, and copies of the comments may be downloaded at
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On March 23, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. MESRI, Behzad (a.k.a. “Skote Vahshat”); DOB 26 Aug 1988; alt. DOB 27 Aug 1988; POB Naghadeh, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
2. MOHAMMADI, Ehsan; DOB 25 Dec 1980; POB Tehran, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport U21669469 (Iran) issued 25 Jul 2011 expires 24 Jul 2016; National ID No. 006-718237-2; Birth Certificate Number 7608 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015,
3. GOHARI MOQADAM, Abuzar (a.k.a. GOHARI MOGHADAM, Abuzar; a.k.a. GOHARIMOQADAM, Abuzar); DOB 16 Sep 1980; alt. DOB 17 Sep 1980; POB Zabol, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport V29385211 (Iran) issued 19 Feb 2014 expires 19 Feb 2019; National ID No. 367-353055-063; Birth Certificate Number 455 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
4. KARIMA, Abdollah (a.k.a. “VAHID”); DOB 21 Mar 1979; POB Mashhad, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; National ID No. 093-343402-2; Birth Certificate Number 4043 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
5. RAFATNEJAD, Gholamreza (a.k.a. RAFAT NEJAD, Gholamreza); DOB 23 May 1979; POB Tabriz, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; National ID No. 137-582394-9; Birth Certificate Number 365 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
6. SABAHI, Roozbeh; DOB 08 Mar 1994; alt. DOB 09 Mar 1994; POB Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
7. SABAHI, Mohammed Reza (a.k.a. SABAHI, Mohammad Reza; a.k.a. “FARAZ”); DOB 02 Dec 1991; POB Tehran, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; National ID No. 041-023144-4 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
8. SADEGHI, Mostafa; DOB 19 Jan 1990; alt. DOB 20 Jan 1990; alt. DOB 19 Jan 1991; alt. DOB 20 Jan 1991; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; National ID No. 2500094065 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
9. MIRKARIMI, Seyed Ali; DOB 20 Sep 1983; POB Zanjan, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport 86486868 (Iran); National ID No. 428-486320-7; Birth Certificate Number 1973 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
10. TAHMASEBI, Sajjad; DOB 19 Jun 1987; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; National ID No. 428-576368-0; Birth Certificate Number 6686 (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as
1. MABNA INSTITUTE, Mirdamad, Naft Jonubi, Taban Alley, Plaque
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities” (E.O. 13694), as amended, is responsible for or complicit in, or has engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Publication of inflation adjustment factor for Indian coal production for calendar year 2017.
The 2017 inflation adjustment factor is used in determining the availability of the credit for Indian coal production under section 45. Section 40408 of Division A of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 extends the credit period for the Indian coal production credit from an 11-year period beginning on January 1, 2006, to a 12-year period beginning on January 1, 2006. This provision is effective for coal produced in the United States or a possession thereof after December 31, 2016.
The 2017 inflation adjustment factor applies to calendar year 2017 sales of Indian coal produced in the United States or a possession thereof.
Phil Tiegerman, CC:PSI:6, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, (202) 317-6853 (not a toll-free number).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return.
Written comments should be received on or before May 29, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sandra Lowery at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5754 or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 990-BL, Information and Initial Excise Tax Return for Black Lung Benefit Trusts and Certain Related Persons, and Form 6069, Return of Excise Tax on Excess Contributions to Black Lung Benefit Trust Under Section 4953 and Computation of Section 192 Deduction.
Written comments should be received on or before May 29, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instruction should be directed to Sandra Lowery at Internal Revenue Services, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5754 or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Request for nominations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is requesting applications from individuals with experience in cybersecurity and information security, tax software development, tax preparation, payroll and tax financial product processing, systems management and improvement, implementation of customer service initiatives, public administration, and consumer advocacy to be considered for selection as members of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC).
Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualification for ETAAC membership, including the applicant's knowledge of regulations and the applicant's past or current affiliations and dealings with the particular tax segment or segments of the community that the applicant wishes to represent on the committee. Applications will be accepted for current vacancies from qualified individuals and from professional and public interest groups that wish to have representation on ETAAC. Submissions must include an application and resume.
ETAAC provides continuing input into the development and implementation of the IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. The ETAAC will provide an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax
This is a volunteer position and members will serve three-year terms on the ETAAC to allow for a rotation in membership which ensures that different perspectives are represented. Travel expenses within government guidelines will be reimbursed. In accordance with Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, a clearance process including fingerprints, annual tax checks, a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal check and a practitioner check with the Office of Professional Responsibility will be conducted.
Written nominations must be received on or before May 10, 2018.
Nominations should be sent to: Michael Deneroff, IRS National Public Liaison Office, CL:NPL:SRM, Room 7559, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, Attn: ETAAC Nominations. Applications may also be submitted via fax to 855-811-8020 or via email at
Michael Deneroff at (202) 317-6851, or send an email to
The establishment and operation of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) is required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98), Title II, Section 2001(b)(2). ETAAC follows a charter in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The ETAAC provides continued input into the development and implementation of the IRS's strategy for electronic tax administration. The ETAAC will research, analyze, consider, and make recommendations on a wide range of electronic tax administration issues and will provide input into the development of the strategic plan for electronic tax administration. Members will provide an annual report to Congress by June 30.
Applicants must complete the application form, which includes describing and documenting the applicant's qualifications for ETAAC membership. Applicants must submit a short one- or two-page statement including recent examples of specific skills and qualifications as they relate to: Cybersecurity and information security, tax software development, tax preparation, payroll and tax financial product processing, systems management and improvement, implementation of customer service initiatives, consumer advocacy and public administration. Examples of critical thinking, strategic planning and oral and written communication are desirable.
An acknowledgement of receipt will be sent to all applicants.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the ETAAC in accordance with Department of Treasury and IRS policies. The IRS has a special interest in assuring that women and men, members of all races and national origins, and individuals with disabilities have an opportunity to serve on advisory committees. Therefore, IRS extends particular encouragement to nominations from such appropriately qualified individuals.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning international boycott report.
Written comments should be received on or before May 29, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 11, 2018.
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
Notice of Open Season for Recruitment of IRS Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) Members.
March 23, 2018 through April 27, 2018.
Fred N. Smith, Jr. 202-317-3087 (not a toll-free call).
Notice is hereby given that the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are inviting individuals to help improve the nation's tax agency by applying to be members of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP). The mission of the TAP is to listen to taxpayers, identify issues that affect taxpayers, and make suggestions for improving IRS service and customer satisfaction. The TAP serves as an advisory body to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the National Taxpayer Advocate. TAP members will participate in subcommittees that channel their feedback to the IRS through the Panel's parent committee.
The IRS is seeking applicants who have an interest in good government, a personal commitment to volunteer approximately 200 to 300 hours a year, and a desire to help improve IRS customer service. As a federal advisory committee, TAP is required to have membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented. Thus, TAP membership represents a cross-section of the taxpaying public with at least one member from each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, in addition to one member representing international taxpayers. For application purposes, “international taxpayers” are defined broadly to include U.S. citizens working, living, or doing business abroad or in a U.S. territory. Potential candidates must be U.S. citizens and must pass a federal tax compliance check and a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation. Applicants who practice before the IRS must be in good standing with the IRS. Federally-registered lobbyists cannot be members of the TAP. Current employees of any Bureau of the Treasury Department or have worked for any Bureau of the Treasury Department within three years of December 1 of the current year are not eligible. The IRS is seeking members or alternates in the following locations:
Alaska, California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming. The TAP is also seeking to include at least one (1) additional member to represent international taxpayers. For these purposes, “international taxpayers” are broadly defined to include U.S. citizens working, living, or doing business abroad or in a U.S. territory.
All states listed above and Colorado, District of Columbia, Delaware, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, Virginia and Washington.
TAP members are a diverse group of citizens who represent the interests of taxpayers from their respective geographic locations by providing feedback from a taxpayer's perspective on ways to improve IRS customer service and administration of the federal tax system, and by identifying grassroots taxpayer issues. Members should have good communication skills and be able to speak to taxpayers about TAP and its activities, while clearly distinguishing
Interested applicants should visit the TAP website at
The opening date for submitting applications is March 23, 2018, and the deadline for submitting applications is April 27, 2018. Interviews may be held. The Department of the Treasury will review the recommended candidates and make final selections. New TAP members will serve a three-year term starting in December 2018. (Note: highly-ranked applicants not selected as members may be placed on a roster of alternates who will be eligible to fill future vacancies that may occur on the Panel.)
Questions regarding the selection of TAP members may be directed to Fred N. Smith, Jr., Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, TA:TAP Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224, or 202-317-3087 (not a toll-free call).
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public roundtable.
Notice is hereby given of the following roundtable of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public roundtable in Washington, DC on April 12, 2018 on “China's Preparations for and Response to North Korea Contingencies.”
The roundtable is scheduled for Thursday, April 12, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
TBD, Washington, DC. A detailed agenda for the roundtable will be posted on the Commission's website at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the roundtable should contact Leslie Tisdale, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005), as amended by Public Law 113-291 (December 19, 2014).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 27, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue, Floor 5, Area 368, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
38 U.S.C. 1506.
VBA uses Eligibility Verification Reports to receive income and net worth information from Pension and Parents DIC claimants and beneficiaries to evaluate eligibility to benefits. The reported information can result in increased or decreased benefits. Typically, claimants and beneficiaries utilize the form to inform VA of changes in their income or net worth, though the forms could also be used to reopen a claim for benefits in limited circumstances.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
(1) Imports of all aluminum articles, as defined in clause 1 of Proclamation 9704, from the countries listed in this clause shall be exempt from the duty established in clause 2 of Proclamation 9704 until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 1, 2018. Further, clause 2 of Proclamation 9704 is amended by striking the last two sentences and inserting the following two sentences: “Except as otherwise provided in this proclamation, or in notices published pursuant to clause 3 of this proclamation, all aluminum articles imports specified in the Annex shall be subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem rate of duty with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, as follows: (a) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018, from all countries except Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, South Korea, Brazil, and the member countries of the European Union, and (b) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 1, 2018, from all countries. This rate of duty, which is in addition to any other duties, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such imported aluminum articles, shall apply to imports of aluminum articles from each country as specified in the preceding sentence.”.
(2) Paragraph (a) of U.S. note 19, added to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by the Annex to Proclamation 9704, is amended by replacing “Canada and of Mexico” with “Canada, of Mexico, of Australia, of Argentina, of South Korea, of Brazil, and of the member countries of the European Union”.
(3) The “Article description” for heading 9903.85.01 of the HTSUS is amended by replacing “Canada or of Mexico” with “Canada, of Mexico, of Australia, of Argentina, of South Korea, of Brazil, or of the member countries of the European Union”.
(4) The exemption afforded to aluminum articles from Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, South Korea, Brazil, and the member countries of the
(5) Any aluminum article that is admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018, may only be admitted as “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41, and will be subject upon entry for consumption to any ad valorem rates of duty related to the classification under the applicable HTSUS subheading. Any aluminum article that was admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone under “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41, prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018, will likewise be subject upon entry for consumption to any ad valorem rates of duty related to the classification under applicable HTSUS subheadings imposed by Proclamation 9704, as amended by this proclamation.
(6) Clause 3 of Proclamation 9704 is amended by inserting a new third sentence reading as follows: “Such relief may be provided to directly affected parties on a party-by-party basis taking into account the regional availability of particular articles, the ability to transport articles within the United States, and any other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.”.
(7) Clause 3 of Proclamation 9704, as amended by clause 6 of this proclamation, is further amended by inserting a new fifth sentence as follows: “For merchandise entered on or after the date the directly affected party submitted a request for exclusion, such relief shall be retroactive to the date the request for exclusion was posted for public comment.”.
(8) The Secretary, in consultation with CBP and other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments and effective dates directed in this proclamation. The Secretary shall publish any such modification to the HTSUS in the
(9) Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
(1) Imports of all steel articles, as defined in clause 1 of Proclamation 9705, as amended by clause 8 of this proclamation, from the countries listed in this clause shall be exempt from the duty established in clause 2 of Proclamation 9705 until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 1, 2018. Further, clause 2 of Proclamation 9705 is amended by striking the last two sentences and inserting the following two sentences: “Except as otherwise provided in this proclamation, or in notices published pursuant to clause 3 of this proclamation, all steel articles imports specified in the Annex shall be subject to an additional 25 percent ad valorem rate of duty with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, as follows: (a) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018, from all countries except Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, South Korea, Brazil, and the member countries of the European Union, and (b) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 1, 2018, from all countries. This rate of duty, which is in addition to any other duties, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such imported steel articles, shall apply to imports of steel articles from each country as specified in the preceding sentence.”.
(2) Paragraph (a) of U.S. note 16, added to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by the Annex to Proclamation 9705, is amended by replacing “Canada and of Mexico” with “Canada, of Mexico, of Australia, of Argentina, of South Korea, of Brazil, and of the member countries of the European Union”.
(3) The “Article description” for heading 9903.80.01 of the HTSUS is amended by replacing “Canada or of Mexico” with “Canada, of Mexico, of Australia, of Argentina, of South Korea, of Brazil, or of the member countries of the European Union”.
(4) The exemption afforded to steel articles from Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, South Korea, Brazil, and the member countries of the EU shall apply only to steel articles of such countries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, through the close of April 30, 2018, at which
(5) Any steel article that is admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018, may only be admitted as “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41, and will be subject upon entry for consumption to any ad valorem rates of duty related to the classification under the applicable HTSUS subheading. Any steel article that was admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone under “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41, prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018, will likewise be subject upon entry for consumption to any ad valorem rates of duty related to the classification under applicable HTSUS subheadings imposed by Proclamation 9705, as amended by this proclamation.
(6) Clause 3 of Proclamation 9705 is amended by inserting a new third sentence reading as follows: “Such relief may be provided to directly affected parties on a party-by-party basis taking into account the regional availability of particular articles, the ability to transport articles within the United States, and any other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.”.
(7) Clause 3 of Proclamation 9705, as amended by clause 6 of this proclamation, is further amended by inserting a new fifth sentence as follows: “For merchandise entered on or after the date the directly affected party submitted a request for exclusion, such relief shall be retroactive to the date the request for exclusion was posted for public comment.”.
(8) The reference to “7304.10” in clause 1 of Proclamation 9705, is amended to read “7304.11”.
(9) The Secretary, in consultation with CBP and other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments and effective dates directed in this proclamation. The Secretary shall publish any such modification to the HTSUS in the
(10) Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
| 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 |