Page Range | 14173-14346 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 14345 - National Donate Life Month, 2018 | |
83 FR 14343 - National Child Abuse Prevention Month, 2018 | |
83 FR 14341 - Cancer Control Month, 2018 | |
83 FR 14299 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
83 FR 14298 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
83 FR 14271 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Superior Silica Sands and Wisconsin Proppants LLC | |
83 FR 14238 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
83 FR 14265 - Final Waiver and Extension of the Project Period for the Opportunity Scholarship Program | |
83 FR 14320 - Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions | |
83 FR 14310 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Air Taxi and Commercial Operator Airport Activity Survey | |
83 FR 14310 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Special Awareness Training for the Washington DC Metropolitan Area | |
83 FR 14232 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Withdrawal for Designated Facilities and Pollutants | |
83 FR 14309 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Revised Approval of Information Collection: Aviation Maintenance Technician School | |
83 FR 14174 - Amendment of Restricted Areas R-2907C; Lake George, FL, R-2910B, R-2910C, and R-2910E; Pinecastle, FL | |
83 FR 14282 - National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
83 FR 14290 - Notice of Public Meeting, Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho | |
83 FR 14219 - Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update | |
83 FR 14226 - Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update | |
83 FR 14198 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Dakota Skipper and Poweshiek Skipperling; Correction | |
83 FR 14189 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Yellow Lance | |
83 FR 14264 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 14264 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
83 FR 14202 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack | |
83 FR 14272 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 14291 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Region-Wide Lease Sale 251 | |
83 FR 14253 - Laminated Woven Sacks From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
83 FR 14257 - Laminated Woven Sacks From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
83 FR 14203 - Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Pummelos Grown in Florida; Increased Assessment Rate | |
83 FR 14312 - Agency Information Collection: Activity Under OMB Review: Report of Financial and Operating Statistics for Large Certificated Air Carriers | |
83 FR 14296 - Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy Board | |
83 FR 14262 - Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
83 FR 14252 - Stainless Steel Bar From Spain: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 14263 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 14252 - Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 14250 - National Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 14297 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License | |
83 FR 14297 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Term License | |
83 FR 14291 - Glycine From China, India, Japan, and Thailand; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
83 FR 14266 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Pre-Authorized Debit Account Brochure and Application | |
83 FR 14285 - Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Olympia Subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher and Oregon Spotted Frog and Draft Environmental Assessment, Thurston County, Washington | |
83 FR 14287 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for Spikedace, Loach Minnow, and Gila Chub; Eagle Creek and Lower San Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona | |
83 FR 14298 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 14297 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 14282 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 14272 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of California | |
83 FR 14251 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Data Collection Form for Reporting on Audits of States, Local Governments, Indian Tribes, Institutions of Higher Education, and Non-Profit Organizations | |
83 FR 14175 - Arbitrage Guidance for Tax-Exempt Bonds; Correction | |
83 FR 14268 - Camilla Solar Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 14269 - Meadow Lake Wind Farm VI LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 14268 - Prairie Queen Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 14268 - Eagle's View Partners, Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 14269 - Turtle Creek Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 14270 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 14266 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 14317 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
83 FR 14302 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Delay for Re-Introduction of Legging Functionality for Stock-Option Orders on INET by an Additional Year | |
83 FR 14300 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC's End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures | |
83 FR 14304 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt IM-8040-3 To Exchange Rule 8040 to Permit Directed Orders To Be Submitted With an Auction Only Designation | |
83 FR 14306 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
83 FR 14295 - Steel Wheels From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
83 FR 14270 - EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Reform of Affected System Coordination in the Generator Interconnection Process, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference | |
83 FR 14243 - Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Colorado; Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests | |
83 FR 14311 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities | |
83 FR 14281 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 14245 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board | |
83 FR 14243 - Siskiyou Resource Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 14305 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania | |
83 FR 14283 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Permit Applications | |
83 FR 14308 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Neptune Aviation Transport Services, Inc. | |
83 FR 14306 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of NEW YORK | |
83 FR 14306 - Interest Rates | |
83 FR 14183 - Privacy Act; Implementation | |
83 FR 14273 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension | |
83 FR 14286 - Foreign Endangered Species; Issuance of Permits | |
83 FR 14299 - Aquila Funds Trust, et al. | |
83 FR 14236 - Control Date for the Northeast Multispecies Charter/Party Fishery; Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan; Correction | |
83 FR 14175 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard | |
83 FR 14179 - Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
83 FR 14234 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1 | |
83 FR 14289 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan for the Cumberland Darter | |
83 FR 14294 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
83 FR 14292 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
83 FR 14313 - Agency Information Collection Requirements; Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Release of Non-Public Information | |
83 FR 14296 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
83 FR 14316 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Subordinated Debt Licensing Requirements | |
83 FR 14314 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards | |
83 FR 14205 - Federal Housing Finance Board; Repeal of Federal Housing Finance Board Regulations | |
83 FR 14173 - Food and Nutrition Service Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; Correction | |
83 FR 14245 - Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels | |
83 FR 14185 - Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime | |
83 FR 14240 - Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): 2018/2019 Income Eligibility Guidelines | |
83 FR 14207 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains technical corrections to the Code of Federal Regulations regarding the Final rule published in the
This document is effective April 3, 2018.
Lael Lubing, Food and Nutrition Service, Financial Management, Grants Division, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 732, Alexandria, VA, (703) 305-2161 or
The Food and Nutrition Service published a final rule on September 28, 2016, (81 FR 66487), which amends FNS regulations to implement the Department of Agriculture final guidance of USDA-specific requirements at 2 CFR part 400 on December 19, 2014 (79 FR 75871). Prior to that, on December 26, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards” in 2 CFR part 200 (78 FR 78589). OMB's final guidance at 2 CFR part 200 followed a Notice of Proposed Guidance issued February 1, 2013 (78 FR 7282), and an Advanced Notice of Proposed Guidance issued February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11778).
Grant programs-education, Grant programs-health.
Grant programs-health, Grant programs-social programs.
Grant programs-social programs.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 215, 227, 246, 247, 248, 249, 272, and 277 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1772 and 1779.
Sec. 15, Pub. L. 95-166, 91 Stat. 1340 (42 U.S.C. 1788), unless otherwise noted.
42 U.S.C. 1786.
(b) * * *
(1) State agencies must obtain annual audits in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, and appendix XI, Compliance Supplement, and USDA implanting regulations 2 CFR parts 400 and 415. In addition, States must require local agencies under their jurisdiction to obtain audits in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, and appendix XI, Compliance Supplement, and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR parts 400 and 415.
Sec. 5, Pub. L. 93-86, 87 Stat. 249, as added by Sec. 1304(b)(2), Pub. L. 95-113, 91 Stat. 980 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec. 1335, Pub. L. 97-98, 95 Stat. 1293 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec. 209, Pub. L. 98-8, 97 Stat. 35 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec. 2(8), Pub. L. 98-92, 97 Stat. 611 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec. 1562, Pub. L. 99-198, 99 Stat. 1590 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec. 101(k), Pub. L. 100-202; sec. 1771(a), Pub. L. 101-624, 101 Stat. 3806 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec 402(a), Pub. L. 104-127, 110 Stat. 1028 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec. 4201, Pub. L. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134 (7 U.S.C. 7901 note); sec. 4221, Pub. L. 110-246, 122 Stat. 1886 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); sec. 4221, Pub. L. 113-79, 7 U.S.C. 612c note).
(a) * * * State and local public agencies, as well as nonprofit organizations, must maintain a financial management system that complies with the Federal regulations contained in 2 CFR part 200, subparts D and E, and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR parts 400 and 415. * * *
42 U.S.C. 1786.
7 U.S.C. 3007.
7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment; correction.
This action corrects a final rule, technical amendment published in the
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a final rule, technical amendment in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 10784, column 1, line 26, in the subject heading, after the word R-2907C, insert “Lake George, FL,”. On page 10784, column 1, line 34, under
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9777) that were published in the
This correction is effective on
Spence Hanemann at (202) 317-6980 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations (TD 9777) that are the subject of this correction are issued under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published July 18, 2016 (81 FR 46582), the final regulations (TD 9777) contain an error that needs to be corrected.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(h) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia (the District). This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on May 3, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at
On July 17, 2014, the District of Columbia (the District) through the District Department of Energy and the Environment (DDOEE) submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour SO
On June 2, 2010, the EPA strengthened the SO
SO
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit a SIP revision to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS—such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each NAAQS and what is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to address any emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA. Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at
On July 17, 2014, the District, through DDOEE, submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour SO
The portion of the District's July 17, 2014 SIP submittal addressing interstate transport (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) includes an emissions inventory and air quality data that concludes that the District does not have sources that can contribute with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO
Additionally, the District described in its submittal several existing SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-specific measures, including measures pursuant to permitting requirements under the CAA, that apply to SO
During the comment period, EPA received four anonymous comments on the rulemaking. Of the comments, one comment was generally supportive of EPA's action and thus no response is required. A second comment generally discussed CAA section 112 and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards but provided no specific information related to this rulemaking action, which was taken under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA believes this
In addition, EPA disagrees with the assertion that EPA did not address contribution from SO
The controls described for both mobile sources and residential heating oil further supplement the low emissions profile of the District as discussed in the TSD and support EPA's assertion that the District's SO
EPA is approving the portions of the District's July 17, 2014 SIP revision addressing interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO
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 June 4, 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, addressing the District's interstate transport for the 2010 1-hour SO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve certain elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Nebraska for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
This final rule is effective on May 3, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0477. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mr. Gregory Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA received Nebraska's infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the 2010 NO
EPA is taking final action to approve the infrastructure submissions as meeting the applicable submission requirements section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving certain elements of the 2010 NO
Regarding the 2010 SO
Regarding the 2010 NO
As noted, a TSD is included as part of the docket to discuss the details of this action.
The state has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. A public comment period was held for the NO
The state held a public comment period for the SO
A public comment period was held for the PM
All three submissions satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. As explained in more detail in the TSD, which is part of this docket, the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September 20, 2017 the date of its publication in the
Thus, the commenter is incorrect to state that EPA only relied on the lack of near-road monitors in Nebraska in concluding that the state is in compliance with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Moreover, because neither EPA nor the commenter have identified any downwind air quality problems to which Nebraska could contribute, the EPA does not agree that it was necessary to evaluate the impact of individual point sources in Nebraska, via modeling or any other analyses, on air quality in other states.
Finally, the commenter is incorrect in asserting that EPA failed to evaluate NO
EPA has demonstrated that Nebraska is not significantly contributing to downwind nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 2010 NO
EPA agrees with the commenter that it has an obligation to take action under section 110(k) on SIP submissions. However, EPA disagrees with the commenter's argument that the Agency cannot elect to act on individual parts or elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission in separate rulemaking actions, as it deems appropriate. Section 110(k)of the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a SIP submission in full, disapprove it in full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part, or conditionally approve it in full or in part, depending on the extent to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to approve state SIP submissions in separable parts was included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual measures in a SIP submission without either approving or disapproving the plan as a whole.
EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k) of the CAA as affording the Agency the discretion to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, individual elements of Nebraska's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM
With respect to the comment on prong 4, although EPA's evaluation of a state's SIP submission can be related to the status of that state's regional haze program,
EPA is approving elements the infrastructure SIP submissions from Nebraska, which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 NO
Regarding the 2010 NO
EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements of 110(a)(2) as it relates to the 2010 SO
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO
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, 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 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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 June 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Department), through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is issuing this final rule to make effective the exemptions that HHS/NIH proposed for a subset of records covered in a new Privacy Act system of records, System No. 09-25-0225, NIH Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Records (NIH eRA Records). The new system covers records used in managing NIH research and development applications and awards throughout the award lifecycle. The listed exemptions are necessary to maintain the integrity of the NIH extramural peer review and award processes, and will enable the agency to prevent, when appropriate, individual record subjects from having access to, and other rights under the Privacy Act with respect to, confidential source-identifying material in the records.
This final rule is effective April 3, 2018.
Celeste Dade-Vinson, NIH Privacy Act Officer, Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone 301-496-4606, fax 301-402-0169, email
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), the exemptions were described in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published for public notice and comment on December 8, 2016 (81 FR 88637). The new system of records was described in a System of Records Notice (SORN) published for public notice and comment the same day (81 FR 88690). Only certain confidential source-identifying information was proposed to be exempted, from the accounting of disclosures, access and amendment, and notification provisions in subsections (c)(3) and (d)(1) through (4) of the Privacy Act, based on subsection (k)(5) of the Act. One comment was received on the NPRM and no comments were received on the SORN. No changes to the proposed exemptions or to the SORN were made as a result of comment received. The NIH research and development award programs provide funds through contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to support biomedical and behavioral research and development projects and centers, training, career development, small business, and loan repayment and other research programs. The NIH is responsible to Congress and the U.S. taxpayers for carrying out its research and development award programs in a manner that facilitates research cost-effectively and in compliance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations, including 42 U.S.C. 217a, 281, 282, 41 U.S.C. 423 and 45 CFR part 75. The NIH uses an award process that relies on checks and balances, separation of responsibilities, and a two-level peer review system to ensure that funding applications submitted to the NIH are evaluated in a manner that is fair, equitable, timely, and free of bias. The two-level peer review system is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 216, 42 U.S.C. 282(b)(6), 42 U.S.C. 284(c)(3), and 42 U.S.C. 289a and governed by regulations at 42 CFR part 52h, “Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and Research and Development Contract Projects.” The two-level system separates the scientific assessment of proposed projects from policy decisions about scientific areas to be supported and the level of resources to be allocated, which permits a more objective and complete evaluation than would result from a single level of review. The two-level review system is designed to provide NIH officials with the best available advice about scientific and technical merit as well as program priorities and policy considerations. The initial or first level review involves panels of experts established according to scientific disciplines, generally referred to as Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), whose primary function is to evaluate the scientific merit of grant applications. The second level of review of grant applications is performed by National Advisory Boards or Councils composed of both scientific and lay representatives. The recommendations made by these Boards or Councils are based not only on considerations of scientific merit as judged by the SRG but also on the relevance of a proposed project to the programs and priorities of the NIH. Referees are those individuals who supply reference or other letters of recommendations for a grant or cooperative agreement applicant.
Confidential referee and peer reviewer identifying material is contained in records such as reference or recommendation letters, reviewer critiques, preliminary or final individual overall impact/priority score records, and/or assignment of peer reviewers to an application and other evaluative materials and data, which referees and peer reviewers provide to the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) under express promises that they will not be identified as the sources of the information, and which NIH/OER compiles solely for the purpose of determining applicants' suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. To the extent that records in System No. 09-25-0225 are retrieved by personal identifiers for individuals other than the referees and reviewers (for example, individual applicants), the exemptions for the new system will enable the agency to prevent, when appropriate, those individual record subjects from having access to, and other rights under the Privacy Act with respect to, confidential source-identifying material in the records.
Under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), individuals have a right of access to records about them in federal agency systems of records, and other rights with respect to those records (such as notification, amendment, and an accounting of disclosures), but the Act permits certain types of systems of records (identified in section 552a (j) and (k)) to be exempted from certain requirements of the Act. Subsection (k)(5) permits the head of an agency to promulgate rules to exempt from the requirements in subsections (c)(3) and (d)(1) through (4) of the Act investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal contracts, to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.
On December 8, 2016, HHS/NIH published a System of Records Notice (SORN) describing the new system (81 FR 88690). On the same date, HHS/NIH also published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 88637) proposing to exempt a subset of records in the system of records under subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act from requirements pertaining to providing an
The specific rationales that support the exemptions, as to each affected Privacy Act provision, are as follows:
•
•
•
Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the agency is now exempting the following source-identifying material in system of records 09-25-0225 NIH eRA Records from the accounting, access, amendment and notification provisions of the Privacy Act (paragraphs (c)(3) and (d)(1) through (4)), based on the specific rationales indicated above:
Material that would inappropriately reveal the identities of referees who provide letters of recommendation and peer reviewers who provide written evaluative input and recommendations to NIH about particular funding applications under an express promise by the government that their identities in association with the written work products they authored and provided to the government will be kept confidential; this includes only material that would reveal a particular referee or peer reviewer as the author of a specific work product (
Notwithstanding the exemptions, consideration will be given to any requests for notification, access, and amendment that are addressed to the System Manager, as provided in the SORN for system of records 09-25-0225, and to accounting of disclosure requests.
The
The agency has reviewed this rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to maximize the net benefits. The agency believes that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and therefore does not constitute an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action, because it will not (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs, or the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant regulatory impacts of a rule on small entities. Because the rule imposes no duties or obligations on small entities, we have determined, and the Director certifies, that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2015) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. The agency does not expect that this final rule would result in any 1-year expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments that would meet or exceed this amount.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This rule will not have any direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are inapplicable.
Privacy.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department amends part 5b of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) NIH Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Records, HHS/NIH/OD/OER, 09-25-0225.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission reconsiders rules adopted in the
Effective May 3, 2018.
Victoria Goldberg, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification, WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-58, CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 18-13, released on February 16, 2018. A full-text copy of this document may be obtained at the following internet address:
1. By the Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification (Order), we reconsider rules adopted in the
2. In the
3. To implement the provision of universal service support for stand-alone broadband, the Commission defined a new type of service that would receive such support—CBOL service. Because CBOL costs were included in the Special Access category by the separations and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the Commission required carriers to shift CBOL costs from the Special Access category to a new CBOL category. The goal was to avoid including such CBOL costs in the determination of just and reasonable rates for special access services and to develop the support mechanism and tariff rates for CBOL service. Reasoning that CBOL costs were similar to common line costs, the Commission decided to use common line costs as a surrogate for identifying the CBOL costs to be shifted from the Special Access category to the CBOL category for each CBOL. This process is referred to as the “surrogate method.” The surrogate method included the broadest definition of loop costs feasible based on the Commission's then-current cost accounting rules. It also was intended to identify those costs in an expansive manner, to segregate the broadband-only loop investment and expenses from other special access costs currently included in the Special Access category, and to preclude cross-subsidization. The Commission recognized, however, that it might be appropriate to revisit the surrogate method in the future if it was not working as intended.
4. In the course of implementing the new rules and carrier introduction of the new CBOL service, it became apparent that, in certain limited situations, the surrogate cost methodology over-allocated costs out of the Special Access category, thereby reducing the revenue requirement and resulting special access services rates more than intended; indeed, in the worst case scenario, rates would have been reduced to zero. Concluding that it would be unreasonable to apply the surrogate method in such circumstances, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) granted a limited waiver of sections 69.311 and 69.416 of the Commission's rules in cases where use of the surrogate cost method would result in such unintended rate reductions. The Bureau granted a similar limited waiver of the rules concerning use of the surrogate cost method for the 2017 annual access charge tariff filing, and any later tariff filings related to the development of the CBOL revenue requirement.
5. In the
6. NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association filed a petition asking the Commission to reconsider portions of the
7. Further, the Commission also adopted rules in the
8. Upon review of the record, we modify our rules by replacing the surrogate cost method for determining the cost of CBOLs and revise the rule requiring rate-of-return carriers to impute an amount equal to the ARC that could have been assessed on a voice or voice/broadband line. We also clarify two matters pertaining to the manner in which competitive overlap can lead to a reduction in CAF BLS. These actions will further advance our goal of ensuring deployment of advanced telecommunications and information services networks throughout “all regions of the nation.”
9. First, we revise sections 69.311 and 69.416 as set forth in the Appendix to determine CBOL costs from the Part 36 and Part 69 cost studies without using a surrogate method. While the surrogate method produced CBOL cost estimates in the expected ranges for many, if not most, carriers, in other situations the estimates were problematic. For a few carriers, particularly those that elected to freeze their separations category relationships, use of the surrogate method would have eliminated the Special Access revenue requirement thereby requiring carriers to offer special access services at no charge. The costs shifted to the CBOL category are also an input into the amount of CAF BLS a carrier is eligible to receive; accordingly, this over-allocation would have had the unintended effect of increasing the projected revenue requirement for CAF BLS. Because use of the surrogate method does not result in an appropriate cost allocation for some rate-of-return carriers, we now reconsider and adopt a different approach for identifying CBOL costs that should be shifted from the Special Access category to the CBOL category commencing with the 2018 annual access charge tariff filings.
10. We find the approach suggested by NTCA to be a significantly better approach than the surrogate method. NTCA proposes that the Commission revise section 69.311(b) to specify that broadband-only investment shall equal the amount of broadband-only loop investment included in CWF Category 2
11. Rate-of-return carriers, other than average schedule carriers and those that elected to freeze their separations category relationships, perform cost studies to implement the Part 36 and 69 cost allocations in the process of establishing interstate access rates. The approach proposed by NTCA and supported by NECA would use existing cost categories and allocation procedures to identify the costs shifted to the CBOL category. Because this approach takes the actual costs from the cost studies into consideration rather than using common line costs as a surrogate, it should produce a more accurate means of identifying and allocating these costs. Under this approach, carriers can identify and track CBOL investment costs that are directly assigned to the Special Access category, as well as track indirect costs to the new CBOL category. Once investments are assigned, the existing rules provide procedures for allocating expenses among categories in a consistent manner that will allow carriers to determine the expenses associated with CBOL services and shift them to the CBOL category. In addition to producing more accurate results, using the current cost study process minimizes the burden on carriers and the likelihood of cost variability and distortions in future years.
12. While NTCA proposes specific assignment categories—separations category 2.1, cable and wire facilities, and category 4.1.1, circuit equipment—we find that the better approach is to be less specific concerning permitted cost categories. The Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations is considering reforms of the separations procedures that have been frozen since 2000. More generic rule language will simplify harmonization of any reforms adopted in that proceeding with the cost allocation rules in Part 69. Therefore, the new rules will require rate-of-return carriers to use direct assignment principles to the extent possible before making any indirect allocations.
13. Rate-of-return carriers shall use the revised procedures for determining broadband-only line costs to be shifted beginning July 1, 2018. Such carriers have already completed the cost studies necessary for developing data related to support amounts and access rates for tariff year 2017 and the
14. Upon further consideration, we also revise, effective for a period of five years, section 51.917(f) of our rules to address NTCA's concern that, under the existing rule, a carrier's CAF ICC support is reduced because of the imputation of an amount on CBOLs that was not part of the balance struck in the
15. We agree with NTCA that our focus on reconsideration should be on the goal of balancing end-user and universal service support adopted in the
16. We limit the ARC imputation amount so that the total ARC revenues and imputation for the current tariff period will not exceed a pre-
17. The revisions to section 51.917(f) rules will take effect on July 1, 2018, the date that the upcoming annual access tariffs will take effect. This effective date will simplify implementation and avoid any complications that would occur as a result of a need to true-up such amounts in 2019. All rate-of-return carriers must reflect the effects of these rule revisions in their Tariff Review Plans for the June 2018 annual access charge tariff filings. We adopt NTCA's recommendation to sunset section 51.917(f)(5), the provision implementing our revisions to the imputation requirement, after five years. We believe that such a limitation is warranted in light of our currently-limited experience with CAF-supported CBOL-based service. We will monitor the effects of section 51.917(f)(5) during that period and take further action as necessary.
18. We reject the grandfathering approach suggested by NTCA. That approach raises unnecessarily complicated administrative issues with respect to the determination and verification of the number of stand-alone broadband lines in service on September 30, 2011. We also question whether a simple frozen number of lines is the best approach since some turnover would be expected over time. For these reasons, we decline to adopt the grandfathering solution suggested by NTCA.
19. In addition to the issues on reconsideration addressed above, we also clarify two matters related to reductions in support due to the competitive overlap procedure adopted in the
20. First we clarify the reduction amounts associated with the second disaggregation method. In the
21. Second, in discussing the transition to support reductions and in the associated rule, the Commission referred to the transition schedule where the CAF BLS subject to competitive overlap is “more than 25 percent” of total CAF BLS. This reference was in contrast to areas “where the reduction of CAF BLS from competitive census block(s) represents
22. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
23. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
25. This Order amends rules adopted in the
26. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification, including a copy of this Final Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification and this Final Certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the
27. Accordingly,
28.
29.
30.
31.
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 51, 54 and 69 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.
(f) * * *
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, a Rate-of-Return Carrier must impute an amount equal to the Access Recovery Charge for each Consumer Broadband-Only Loop line that receives support pursuant to § 54.901 of this chapter, with the imputation applied before CAF-ICC recovery is determined. * * *
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(4) of this section, commencing July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2023, the maximum total dollar amount a carrier must impute on supported consumer broadband-only loops is limited as follows:
(i) For the affected tariff year, the carrier shall compare the amounts in paragraphs (f)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The sum of the revenues from projected Access Recovery Charges assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, any amounts imputed pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section, and any imputation pursuant to paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(B) The sum of the revenues from Access Recovery Charges assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and any amounts imputed pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section for tariff year 2015-16, after being trued-up.
(ii) If the amount determined in paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A) of this section is greater than the amount determined in paragraph (f)(5)(i)(B), the sum of the revenues from projected Access Recovery Charges assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and any amounts imputed pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the affected year must be compared to the amount determined in paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.
(A) If the former amount is greater than the latter amount, no imputation is made on Consumer Broadband-Only Loops.
(B) If the former amount is equal to or less than the latter amount, the imputation on Consumer Broadband-Only Loops is limited to the difference between the two amounts.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
(g) For any incumbent local exchange carrier for which the disaggregated support for competitive census blocks represents 25 percent or more of the support the carrier would have received in the study area in the absence of this rule, support shall be reduced for each competitive census block according to the following schedule:
47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 220, 254, 403.
(b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer broadband-only loop investment to be removed from the special access category shall be determined using the following estimation method.
(c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each carrier shall determine, consistent with the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the amount of Consumer Broadband-Only Loop investment and related reserves and other investment assigned to the interstate Special Access category that is to be shifted to the Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category.
(b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer broadband-only loop expenses to be removed from the special access category shall be determined using the following estimation method.
(c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each carrier shall determine, consistent with the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the amount of Consumer Broadband-Only Loop expenses assigned to the interstate Special Access category that are to be shifted to the Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act), for yellow lance (
This rule is effective May 3, 2018.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606 or telephone 919-856-4520. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the yellow lance. The SSA team was
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the yellow lance (82 FR 16559; April 5, 2017) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the yellow lance and the SSA Report for a full summary of species information. Both are available on the Southeast Region website at
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered comments from the public on the proposed rule (see below). No substantive changes were made to this final rule after consideration of the comments we received. The SSA report was updated (to version 1.3) based on comments and some additional information provided; many small, non-substantive clarifications and corrections were made throughout the SSA document, including ensuring consistency of colors on maps, providing details about data sources used, updating references in the description of threats section, and minor clarifications. However, the information we received in response to the proposed rule did not change our determination that the yellow lance is a threatened species.
In the proposed rule published on April 5, 2017 (82 FR 16559), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by June 5, 2017. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review actions under the Act, we solicited expert opinion from 13 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with yellow lance and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from seven of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the information contained in the SSA Report. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final SSA Report. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and were incorporated into the final SSA Report as appropriate.
This final rule and the final SSA report rely on published articles, unpublished research, expert habitat modeling, comprehensive digital data, and the expert opinion of subject biologists to determine the listing status for the yellow lance. Additional information was added throughout the SSA to detail data sources used for analysis. The most comprehensive, current data sets from all known State agency (including museum) databases
Please refer to Chapter 4 of the SSA Report for a more detailed discussion of the factors affecting the yellow lance (see
To evaluate the current and future viability of the yellow lance, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. The historical range of the yellow lance included streams and rivers in the Atlantic Slope drainages from the Patuxent River Basin south to the Neuse River Basin, with the documented historical distribution in 12 Management Units (MUs) within eight former populations. The yellow lance is presumed extirpated from 25 percent (3/12) of the historically occupied MUs. Of the remaining nine occupied MUs, 17 percent are estimated to have high resiliency, 8 percent moderate resiliency, and 67 percent low resiliency. At the population level, the overall condition of one of the eight populations (the Tar population) is estimated to have moderate resiliency, while the remaining six extant populations (Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, and Neuse populations) are characterized by low resiliency. The Potomac population is presumed to be extirpated. An assessment of the habitat elements finds that 86 percent of streams that remain part of the current species' range are estimated to be in low or very low condition.
Once known to occupy streams in three physiographic regions (Mountain, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain), the species has lost occurrences in each physiographic region compared with historical occurrences, although it is still represented by at least one population in each region. We estimated that the yellow lance currently has reduced adaptive potential relative to historical potential due to decreased representation in seven river basins and three physiographic regions. The species retains most of its known river basin variability, but its distribution has been greatly reduced in the Rappahannock, York, Chowan, and Neuse River populations. In addition, compared to historical distribution, the species has declined by 70 percent in the Coastal Plain region and by approximately 50 percent in both the Piedmont and the Mountain regions. Latitudinal variability is also reduced, as much of the species' current distribution has contracted and is largely limited to the southern portions of its historical range, primarily in the Tar River Basin.
While the overall range of the yellow lance has not changed significantly, the remaining occupied portions of the range have become constricted within each basin and the species is largely limited to the southern portions of its historical range. One population (the Tar population) was estimated to be moderately resilient, but all other extant populations exhibit low resiliency. Redundancy was estimated as the number of historically occupied MUs that remain currently occupied. The species retains redundancy (albeit in low condition) within the Rappahannock, Chowan, and Neuse River populations, and one population (Tar) has multiple moderate or highly resilient management units. Overall, the species has decreased redundancy across its range due to an estimated 57 percent reduction in occupancy compared to historical levels.
The largest threats to the future viability of the yellow lance are habitat degradation from stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity. The stressors we identified that have led to the degradation of the yellow lance habitat include development, agricultural practices, forest management, barriers such as dams and impoundments, and invasive species. A brief summary of these primary stressors is presented below; for a full description of these stressors, refer to chapter 4 of the SSA report for the yellow lance.
Impervious surfaces associated with development negatively affect water quality when pollutants that accumulate on impervious surfaces are washed directly into the streams during storm events. Storm water runoff affects water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity, which in turn alters the water chemistry and could make it unsuitable for the yellow lance. Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, insecticides,
Urban development can lead to increased variability in streamflow, typically increasing the amount of water entering a stream after a storm and decreasing the time it takes for the water to travel over the land before entering the stream. Stream habitat is altered either directly via channelization or clearing of riparian areas, or indirectly via high streamflows that reshape the channel and cause sediment erosion. Impervious surfaces associated with increased development cause rain water to accumulate and flow rapidly into storm drains, thereby becoming superheated, which can stress or kill these mussel species when the superheated water enters streams. Pollutants like gasoline, oil, and fertilizers are also washed directly into streams and can kill mussels and other aquatic organisms. The large volumes and velocity of water combined with the extra debris and sediment entering streams following a storm can stress, displace, or kill the yellow lance, and the host fish species upon which it depends.
A further risk of urbanization is the accompanying road development that often results in improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings. These culverts act as barriers, either as flow through the culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream, or if the culvert ends up being perched above the stream bed, and host fish (and, therefore, the yellow lance) cannot pass through them. This scenario leads to loss of access to quality habitat, as well as fragmented habitat and a loss of connectivity between populations of the yellow lance. This situation can limit both genetic exchange and recolonization opportunities.
Significant portions of all of the river basins within the range of the yellow lance are affected by development, from 7 percent in the Tar River basin to 25 percent in the Patuxent River basin (based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data). The Neuse River basin in North Carolina contains one-sixth of the entire State's population, indicating heavy development pressure on the watershed. The Nottoway MU (in the Chowan population) contains 155 impaired stream miles, 4 major discharges, 32 minor discharges, and over 3,000 road crossings, affecting the quality of the habitat for the yellow lance. The Potomac River basin is currently made up of 12.7 percent impervious surfaces, changing natural streamflow, reducing appropriate stream habitat, and decreasing water quality throughout the population. For complete data on all of the populations, refer to appendix D of the SSA report.
It is common practice to pump water for irrigation from adjacent streams or rivers into a reservoir pond, or to spray the stream or river water directly onto crops. If the water withdrawal is excessive or done illegally, it reduces the amount of water available to downstream sensitive areas during low-flow months, resulting in dewatering of channels and stranding of mussels, leading to desiccation and death. In the Rappahannock River basin, for example, the upper watershed supports largely agricultural land uses. Sedimentation is a problem in the upper watershed, as stormwater runoff from the major tributaries (Rapidan and Hazel rivers) leaves the Rappahannock River muddy even after minor storm events. According to the 2011 National Land Cover Data, all of the watersheds within the range of the yellow lance are affected by agricultural land uses, most with 20 percent or more of the watershed having been converted for agricultural use.
Forestry activities often include the construction of logging roads through the riparian zone, which can directly degrade nearby stream environments (Aust et al. 2011, p. 123). Roads can cause localized sedimentation, as well as sedimentation traveling downstream into more sensitive habitats. These effects lead to stress and mortality for the yellow lance, as discussed in
Hydrilla (
In addition to the impacts on the yellow lance individually, it is likely that several of the above summarized risk factors are acting synergistically or additively on the species. The combined impact of multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting alone. For example, the Meherrin River MU contains four stream reaches with 34 miles of impaired streams. The stream reaches have low benthic-macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved oxygen, low pH, and contain
To forecast the biological conditions of the yellow lance into the future, we devised a range of plausible future scenarios by eliciting expert information on the primary stressors anticipated to affect the species into the future: habitat loss and degradation due to urbanization and the effects of climate change. These scenarios were based, in part, on the results of urbanization (Terando et al. 2014) and climate models (IPCC, 2013) that predict changes in habitat used by the yellow lance. The models that were used to forecast urbanization into the future projected out 50 years, and climate change models included that timeframe as well. The range of plausible future scenarios of yellow lance habitat conditions and population factors suggest possible extirpation in as many as five of seven currently extant populations. Even the most optimistic model predicted that only two populations will remain extant in 50 years, and those populations are expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance. For a more-detailed discussion of our evaluation of the biological status of the yellow lance and the factors that may affect its continued existence, please see the SSA Report (Service, 2017 entire) and the proposed rule (82 FR 16559, April 4, 2017).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the yellow lance. The yellow lance is presumed extirpated from 25 percent (3) of the historically occupied MUs, with most populations characterized by low resiliency. Most of the streams that remain part of the current species' range are estimated to be in low or very low condition with decreased occupancy of yellow lance.
The yellow lance faces threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). These threats, which are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and effects of climate change (Factor E), will impact the future viability of the yellow lance. We did not find that the yellow lance was impacted by overutilization (Factor B), or disease or predation (Factor C). While there are regulatory mechanisms in place that may benefit the yellow lance, the existing regulatory mechanisms did not reduce the impact of the stressors to the point that the species is not threatened by extinction (Factor D).
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We considered whether the yellow lance meets either of these definitions, and we find that the yellow lance meets the definition of a threatened species. Our analysis of the species' current and future conditions, as well as the conservation efforts discussed above, show that habitat modification and destruction (Factor A) and other natural and manmade factors (Factor E) will continue to impact the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the yellow lance so that it is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.
We considered whether the yellow lance is currently in danger of extinction and determined that endangered status is not appropriate. The current conditions as assessed in the yellow lance SSA report show multiple resilient populations over a majority of the species' historical range. The yellow lance still exhibits representation across all three physiographic regions, and extant populations remain from the Patuxent River south to the Neuse River. While habitat modification and destruction (Factor A), invasive species (Factor E), and effects of climate change (Factor E) are currently acting on the species and many of those threats are expected to continue into the future, we did not find that the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. According to our assessment of plausible future scenarios, the species is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species warrants listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the yellow lance is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014).
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the yellow lance as threatened in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the yellow lance. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
A careful assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation is still ongoing, and we are in the process of working with the States and other partners in acquiring the complex information needed to perform that assessment. A proposed rule to designate critical habitat will be published in the near future.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Destruction or alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of fill material, dredging, snagging, impounding, channelization, or modification of stream channels or banks;
(3) Destruction of riparian habitat directly adjacent to stream channels that causes significant increases in sedimentation and destruction of natural stream banks or channels;
(4) Discharge of pollutants into a stream or into areas hydrologically connected to a stream occupied by the species;
(5) Diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow; and
(6) Pesticide/herbicide applications in violation of label restrictions.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. There are no tribal lands affected by this listing determination.
A complete list of references cited in the SSA Report that informed this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Correcting amendments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule in the
This correction is effective April 3, 2018.
Susan Wilkinson, (703) 358-2506. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Dakota skipper
We listed the Dakota skipper as a threatened species and the Poweshiek skipperling as an endangered species on October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63672) with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act for the Dakota skipper. This rule followed publication on October 24, 2013, of a proposal to list the Dakota skipper as threatened with a section 4(d) rule and the Poweshiek skipperling as endangered (78 FR 63573). Also on October 24, 2013, we published in the
As explained above, this rulemaking is necessary to correct an error associated with the publication of a map for the wrong species and an editorial error related to the title of a map. Therefore, under these circumstances, we have determined, pursuant to 5
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(i)
Poweshiek Skipperling
(28) PS Minnesota Unit 7, Lincoln and Pipestone Counties, Minnesota. Map of PS Minnesota Unit 7 follows:
(30) PS Minnesota Unit 10, Swift and Chippewa Counties, Minnesota. Map of PS Minnesota Unit 10 follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) reef fish fishery for the 2018 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined greater amberjack landings have exceeded the 2018 commercial annual catch target (ACT). Therefore, the commercial sector fishing season for greater amberjack in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) will not re-open on June 1, 2018, the end of the commercial seasonal closure, and the sector will remain closed until the start of the next commercial fishing season on January 1, 2019. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf greater amberjack resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2019.
Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
NMFS manages the reef fish fishery of the Gulf, which includes greater amberjack, under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All greater amberjack weights discussed in this temporary rule are in round weight.
The 2018 commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for Gulf greater amberjack is 319,140 lb (144,759 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1)(iii). The 2018 commercial quota (equivalent to the commercial ACT) is 277,651 lb (125,940.38 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.39(a)(1)(v). Additionally, the greater amberjack commercial sector is closed each year during the months of March, April, and May as specified in 50 CFR 622.36(a).
Under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for greater amberjack when the commercial ACT is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that as of March 15, 2018, 106.4 percent of the 2018 commercial ACT has been reached. Accordingly, NMFS is closing commercial harvest of greater amberjack from the Gulf EEZ for the remainder of the 2018 fishing year effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2019. This means that the commercial sector for Gulf greater amberjack will not re-open on June 1, 2018.
During the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of greater amberjack taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of greater amberjack that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2018, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. The commercial sector for greater amberjack will re-open on January 1, 2019, the beginning of the 2019 greater amberjack commercial fishing season.
During the commercial closure, the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.38(b)(1) apply to all harvest or possession of greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ. Additionally, the recreational sector for greater amberjack is closed until May 1, 2018. During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf greater amberjack and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that there is good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the requirement to close the commercial sector when the commercial ACT is reached or projected to be reached was subject to notice and comment, and NMFS must now notify the public of the closure.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Citrus Administrative Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by May 3, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Abigail Campos, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202)720-8938, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida. Part 905, (referred to as “the Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within the area of production, and a public member.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Florida citrus handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable citrus for the 2017-18 crop year, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate from $0.009, the rate that was established for the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.02 per 4/5-bushel carton of citrus handled for the 2017-2018 and subsequent fiscal periods. The proposed higher rate is a result of a smaller crop forecast due to hurricane damage and the need to cover Committee expenses.
The Committee met on June 29, 2017 and unanimously recommended both maintaining the 2013-14 assessment rate and new 2017-18 budgeted expenditures of $132,000. Following the significant damage experienced by the industry from Hurricane Irma, the Committee held a second meeting on November 9, 2017, to discuss a revised crop estimate for 2017-18. Due to significant crop damage, the Committee
Of the total $132,000 budgeted for the 2017-18 fiscal period, major expenditures recommended by the Committee include $75,000 for salaries, $10,000 for data collection and fresh shipments reporting, and $9,000 for auditing & accounting. Compared to the previous fiscal year's budget of $140,600, budgeted expenses for these items were $75,000, $25,000, and $9,200, respectively. The significant decrease in budgeted expenses for data collection and fresh shipment reporting stems from the development of a new computer program that better reports and extrapolates data, thus reducing reporting time and increasing efficiencies.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments of $120,000 (six million 4/5> bushel cartons assessed at $0.02 per carton), along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $132,000. Funds in the reserve (currently $124,040) would be kept within the maximum permitted by § 905.42 and would not exceed the expenses of two fiscal periods.
The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's budget for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 500 producers of Florida citrus in the production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the industry, and the Committee, for the 2016-17 season the weighted average f.o.b. price for Florida citrus was approximately $15.20 per carton with total shipments of 12.6 million cartons. Using the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of more than $7,500,000 ($15.20 times 12.6 million equals $191,520,000 divided by 20 handlers equals $9,576,000 per handler).
In addition, based on the NASS data, the weighted average grower price for the 2016-2017 season was around $8.30 per carton of citrus. Based on grower price, shipment data, and the total number of Florida citrus growers, and assuming a normal distribution, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000 ($8.30 times 12.6 million cartons equals $104,580,000 divided by 500 growers equals $209,160 per grower). Thus, the majority of handlers Florida citrus may be classified as large entities, while the majority of growers may be classified as small entities.
This proposal would increase the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.009 to $0.02 per 4/5-bushel carton of Florida citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $132,000 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 4/5-bushel carton of citrus handled. The proposed assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.011 higher than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable citrus for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at six million 4/5 bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.02 rate should provide $120,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $75,000 for salaries, $10,000 for data collection, and $9,000 for auditing and accounting. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $75,000, $25,000, and $9,200, respectively.
As a result of damage from Hurricane Irma, the Committee estimates that the 2017-18 crop to be approximately six million 4/5-bushel cartons, down from the 8.6 million 4/5-bushel cartons estimated on June 29, 2017. Due to the decline in production, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures and would further deplete the Committee's reserve fund. The assessment rate increase would generate additional revenue and would help offset the amount of reserves needed to fund the budget. Therefore, the Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.009 per 4/5-bushel cartons of citrus. However, leaving the assessment unchanged would not generate sufficient revenue to meet the Committee's expenses for the 2017-18 budget of $132,000 and would deplete the reserve. Based on estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.02 should provide $120,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined assessment revenue, along with interest income and funds from the authorized reserves would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2017-18 fiscal period.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal year indicates that
This proposed action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order. In addition, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the Florida citrus industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 29, 2017, and November 9, 2017, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0109 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida citrus handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tangerines, Pummelos.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.02 per 4/5-bushel carton or equivalent is established for Florida citrus covered under the Order.
Federal Housing Finance Board; Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing to repeal two parts of the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) regulations, one of which defines terms used in Finance Board regulations and one of which describes the process by which the Finance Board conducted its monthly interest rate survey (MIRS). The definitions to be repealed are either obsolete or duplicate definitions that FHFA has previously adopted. The regulation relating to the MIRS has become outdated because it does not accurately describe the manner in which FHFA currently conducts the survey. Although FHFA intends to continue to conduct the MIRS in the same manner as it is doing presently, there is no need to carry over this provision into its own regulations. FHFA also is proposing to repeal a number of subchapters of the Finance Board regulations that it had previously reserved, but which no longer serve any purpose because they include no regulatory text.
Written comments must be received on or before May 18, 2018.
You may submit your comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 2590-AA91, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Vickie R. Olafson, Assistant General Counsel,
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of this proposed rule. FHFA will make all comments timely received available
Effective July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA),
FHFA proposes to repeal part 900 of the Finance Board regulations, which includes definitions of forty-two terms that had been used throughout the Finance Board regulations. In 2013, FHFA carried over into its own regulations, at part 1201, most of the Finance Board definitions, but did not repeal the Finance Board definitions at that time because a number of substantive Finance Board regulations that used those terms remained in effect.
FHFA proposes to repeal Part 906 of the Finance Board Regulations, consisting of reserved subparts A and C, and subpart B, § 906.5, which describes the manner in which the Finance Board conducted the “Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on Conventional One-Family Non-farm Mortgage Loans” commonly referred to as the “Monthly Interest Rate Survey” or “MIRS.” The MIRS is a monthly survey of mortgage lenders that solicits information on the terms and conditions on all conventional, single-family, fully amortizing, purchase-money mortgage loans closed during the last five working days of the preceding month. It was originally conducted by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), and was continued by the Finance Board, in accordance with the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, the legislation that abolished the FHLBB and established the Finance Board as its successor. FHFA also has continued to conduct the survey and publish the data tables monthly, as successor to the Finance Board.
Historically, two housing finance benchmarks have been based on data obtained through the MIRS: (1) The “national average one-family house price,” which, between 1980 and 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were statutorily required to use in making annual adjustments to the conforming loan limit;
Adjustments in the conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are no longer based on data collected through the MIRS. Some lenders, however, may still use FHFA's ARM Index, which is derived from MIRS data, as one factor in pricing mortgage loans that they originate. In addition, businesses, trade associations, and government agencies at both the federal and state level rely upon the MIRS data for various business and regulatory purposes.
FHFA intends to continue conducting the MIRS and publishing the data results on its website monthly. Because the current MIRS regulation includes an outdated description of the manner in which the survey is conducted, however, and is not necessary in order to implement the statutory mandate that FHFA conduct the survey, FHFA has determined that the regulation is unnecessary.
FHFA proposes to repeal parts 956-999 of title 12 of the CFR, which are Finance Board provisions that are designated as “[r]eserved.” These reserved parts are currently the only items under subchapters F-M of chapter IX of title 12. Because these parts contain no substantive provisions, there is nothing to revise and relocate to the FHFA regulations. Nonetheless, unless FHFA affirmatively removes the reference to those parts as being reserved and removes subchapters F-M those references and empty subchapters
Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires the FHFA Director, when promulgating regulations “of general applicability and future effect” relating to the Banks, to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they may relate to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure, mission of providing liquidity to members, affordable housing and community development mission, capital structure, and joint and several liability.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) requires that FHFA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public.
Although the proposed rule would remove the descriptive provision regarding the MIRS that now appears at 12 CFR 906.5, that removal would not change any aspect of the information collection; that is, FHFA would continue to conduct the survey in accordance with the terms of the existing PRA clearance. Therefore, FHFA has not submitted to OMB a request to approve a revision to control number 2590-0004.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Federal home loan banks, Office of Finance, Regulated entity.
Conventional one-family non-farm mortgage loans, Government contracts, Minority businesses, Monthly interest rate survey, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reserved.
Accordingly, for reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4511, 4512, 4513, and 4526, FHFA proposes to amend subchapters A, B, and F-M of chapter IX of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposal for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 757 airplanes; and Model 767 airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by adding Model 737-8 airplanes and future Model 737 airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by May 18, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3553; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 757 airplanes; and Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that The Boeing Company Model 737-8 series airplanes and future Model 737 airplanes are also subject to the unsafe condition, and therefore it is necessary to add these airplanes to the applicability.
Model 737-8 airplanes are delivered with the MOV actuator having part number (P/N) MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) as the type design configuration. This is the latest MOV actuator part number currently available, and that part number addresses the unsafe condition identified in this SNPRM. Subsequent future Model 737 airplanes are expected to be certified and delivered with the same MOV actuator part number. For those future Model 737 airplanes, installation of the MOV actuator having any earlier part number would not be part of the type design configuration; such installation will therefore not be allowed. However, installation of an MOV actuator having an earlier part number is functionally and physically possible for Model 737-8 airplanes and potentially for the future Model 737 airplanes, and such installation could occur in the field by using provisions in FAA Advisory Circular 120-77 or other means.
To avoid such installation that could result in an unsafe airplane configuration, this SNPRM proposes to require, for Model 737-8 airplanes and subsequent future Model 737 airplanes, incorporation of an AWL that would prohibit installation of the MOV actuator having earlier part numbers. Other than the parts installation prohibition, no maintenance action is associated with the new AWL specified in this proposed AD. Once the AWL is incorporated into an operator's maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, the operator is required to comply with the AWL as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c). This new proposed AWL (to prohibit the installation of certain parts) is also proposed for Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 757 series airplanes; and Model 767 series airplanes.
Boeing has revised the service information specified in this SNPRM. We have revised this proposed AD to specify using the latest revisions as the appropriate source of service information and to credit the previous revisions, as follows:
Paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(2) of this proposed AD specify Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2017. Paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed AD specifies credit for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, dated May 18, 2016.
Paragraphs (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), and (i)(2)(iii) of this proposed AD specify Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision February 2017. Paragraph (n)(4) of this proposed AD specifies credit for Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision January 2016, or Revision July 2016.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines (UAL) requested that we issue three separate ADs, one each for Model 737 airplanes, Model 757 airplanes, and Model 767 airplanes, instead of one AD. UAL requested this revision to reduce complexity and avoid possible confusion.
We do not agree with UAL's request. We have decided to cover Model 737, Model 757, and Model 767 airplanes in this SNPRM. We consider that the level of complexity of this SNPRM is reasonable and that the proposed actions are clearly defined. Additionally, to restructure the AD as requested, would unnecessarily delay the issuance of the final rule and mitigation of the unsafe condition. We
Japan Airlines (JAL) noted that according to AD 2015-19-03, Amendment 39-18266 (80 FR 55527, September 16, 2015) (“AD 2015-19-03”), and AD 2015-21-09, Amendment 39-18302 (80 FR 65121, October 26, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-09”), MOV actuators P/N MA20A2027 and MA30A1001 that are repetitively inspected need not be replaced by P/N MA30A1017. JAL requested that we provide the reason for mandating the installation of the latest MOV actuator part number instead of allowing repetitive inspections. JAL stated that it has never experienced a failure of an MOV actuator, and it is therefore not necessary to mandate the replacement of MOV actuators with the latest type if the repetitive inspections of MOV actuators (required by the ADs referenced by JAL) are being accomplished daily or every 10 days.
We agree that clarification of the reason for the proposed installation is necessary. Three ADs were issued to correct latent failures of the MOV actuator for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves and for certain airplanes, the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel shutoff valve. Those ADs are AD 2015-21-10, Amendment 39-18303 (80 FR 65130, October 26, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-10”), AD 2015-21-09, and AD 2015-19-04, Amendment 39-18267 (80 FR 55505, September 16, 2015) (“AD 2015-19-04”). AD 2015-19-03 (referenced by the commenter) was superseded by AD 2015-21-10. AD 2015-21-10, AD 2015-21-09, and AD 2015-19-04 explained that the repetitive inspections required by the AWLs were considered to be an interim action to address the unsafe condition, and that we might consider additional rulemaking once the modification that would address the unsafe condition was developed. This proposed AD would require replacement of the specific MOV actuator part numbers because the installation of the latest MOV actuator part number would result in a configuration that is fail safe, by eliminating latent MOV actuator failure modes that would leave the airplane one failure away from a potential incident or accident. Without this modification, affected airplanes have a potential of being dispatched with a failed MOV actuator. In the event of an engine or APU fire, such a dispatch configuration would allow certain fires to become uncontrollable. The AWL repetitive inspections only limit the time of exposure of the airplane configuration dispatched with a failed fuel shutoff means. Also, repetitive inspections have a potential of introducing human errors that could result in a failure to detect an MOV actuator failure or other issues. We have not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Air Canada (ACN), All Nippon Airways (ANA), Delta Airlines (DAL), the Europe Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), FedEx Express (FedEx), Pegasus Airlines, UAL, and Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we revise the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to specify that the accomplishment of the proposed actions would terminate the requirements of AD 2015-19-04 (for Model 757 airplanes), AD 2015-21-09 (for Model 767 airplanes), and AD 2015-21-10 (for Model 737 airplanes).
The commenters stated that the three referenced ADs require incorporation of the AWLs that require repetitive inspections of the MOV actuators having part number (P/N) MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56). The commenters asserted that since the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would mandate replacement of those part numbers with a new part number, the three ADs should be terminated by the new AD action.
We agree to revise this proposed AD to specify a condition that would terminate the requirements of AD 2015-19-04, AD 2015-21-09, and AD 2015-21-10. We have determined that the requirements of those ADs can be terminated only after the actions required by this proposed AD are accomplished on all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet. We consider that the above condition is necessary to ensure the safety of mixed airplane configurations in an operator's fleet during the compliance time of this proposed AD.
We also consider that keeping the AWLs mandated by AD 2015-19-04, AD 2015-21-09, or AD 2015-21-10 in the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, until the actions specified by this proposed AD are accomplished on all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet would cause no extra burden on operators. The AWLs mandated by AD 2015-19-04, AD 2015-21-09, or AD 2015-21-10 require repetitive inspections only for airplanes with MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) installed at specific locations. Once those part numbers are removed from an airplane and replaced by an acceptable part number, the repetitive inspections specified in the AWLs do not apply to that airplane.
The condition discussed above will ensure adherence to applicable requirements during the compliance time of this proposed AD. We also have determined that an additional means is necessary to protect the airplanes from installation of the discrepant MOV actuators at certain locations. This proposed AD would require removal of an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) at specific locations. However, it is possible those MOV actuator part numbers may be re-installed since those part numbers continue to be available and acceptable for installation at locations other than those locations addressed by this proposed AD where failures do not pose a safety concern. To address this concern, we have determined that the incorporation of a new AWL that would prohibit the installation of MOV actuators having P/Ns MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) and MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) at specific locations is necessary.
We have specified the requirement to revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a new AWL in paragraph (j) of this proposed AD. This action must be accomplished after the accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this proposed AD, as applicable, on all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet and before the end of the compliance time of this proposed AD. Other than the parts installation prohibition, no maintenance action is associated with the new AWL. We have also added paragraph (m) in this proposed AD to specify that incorporation of the applicable AWL into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, would terminate certain requirements of AD 2015-19-04, AD 2015-21-09, and AD 2015-21-10. We have moved the content of paragraph (m) of this proposed AD (in the NPRM) to paragraph (p) of this proposed AD.
ANA, Boeing, DAL, DHL Express (DHL), FedEx, and UAL requested that we revise paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to add MOV actuators having P/Ns AV-31-1, MA11A1265, and MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111, S343T003-
We agree with the commenters' request to identify additional MOV actuator part numbers that are acceptable to be used as replacement parts, with the following clarification. For Model 757 airplanes, MOV actuator P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14) is acceptable as installed on the delivered airplanes, but that part number is not allowed to be used as a replacement for other part numbers as instructed in the service information specified in this proposed AD. The use of MOV actuator P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14) to replace other part numbers is allowed for Model 767 airplanes, but not for Model 757 airplanes. We have revised paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this proposed AD accordingly.
DAL noted that the NPRM referred to “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” but such a section was not in the NPRM. DAL requested that we add a section that discusses the differences between the proposed AD (in the NPRM) and the service information specified in the NPRM. DAL explained one key difference: the alternative acceptable MOV actuator part numbers that are specified in the service information for Model 757 and Model 767 airplanes are not specified in the proposed AD.
We partially agree with DAL's request. The NPRM inadvertently referred to an unnecessary section that was not included in the NPRM. Furthermore, we did not intend to differ with the service information in regards to the additional MOV actuator part numbers specified in the service information for Model 757 and Model 767 airplanes. As stated previously, we have revised paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this proposed AD to allow the additional part numbers.
Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated that operators have had ample time to prepare scheduling and maintenance activities to address the safety concern in a more efficient time frame than the proposed compliance time of 8 years.
We infer that ALPA wants us to reduce the compliance time, however, they did not identify a proposed compliance time. We have evaluated the level of safety and also the mitigation provided by the airworthiness limitations mandated by AD 2015-19-04, AD 2015-21-09, and AD 2015-21-10. We have determined that the 8-year compliance time is adequate to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
SWA requested that we revise paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to permit MOV actuators having part numbers approved in the future. SWA stated that this would reduce requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
We disagree with SWA's request. Paragraphs (h)(l), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) did not allow the installation of new MOV actuator part numbers that could be made available in the future. During the installation of the MOV actuator, it is critical to ensure that the MOV actuator is properly bonded to the structure to prevent the development of an ignition source inside the fuel tank due to fault current or lightning strike. To ensure proper installation of a future MOV actuator part number, we would have to require in the AD that a future MOV actuator part number would be installed in accordance with applicable installation instructions. Since applicable installation instructions for a future MOV actuator part number do not exist, and we cannot incorporate instructions which do not exist in an AD, we cannot allow the installation of future MOV actuator part numbers in the proposed AD. However, operators may request an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (o) of this proposed AD to allow installation of MOV actuators approved in the future. We have made no further change to paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this proposed AD in this regard.
DAL requested that we allow installation of serviceable parts as well as new parts. DAL stated that the service information specifies only new parts.
We agree with DAL's request. The installation of serviceable parts meets the intent of the AD and addresses the unsafe condition. We have revised paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this proposed AD to specify that installation of serviceable parts is acceptable.
ANA and UAL requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) by adding alternative MOV actuator P/Ns AV-31-1, MA11A1265, and MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111, S343T003-14, and S343T003-41, respectively), if those alternative part numbers are allowed under paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). ANA also suggested changing the wording “fuel shutoff valves” to “left and right engine fuel shutoff valves” in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to eliminate ambiguity, since Model 767 airplanes have several fuel shutoff valves. The commenters stated that if the alternative part numbers are allowed for installation under paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) should prohibit the replacement of those alternative part numbers with MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56).
We agree with the commenters' requests. Those alternative MOV actuators are acceptable for Model 757 and Model 767 airplanes and should not be replaced by MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) after the effective date of the AD. The parts installation prohibition specified in paragraph (j) of proposed AD (in the NPRM) corresponds with the parts installation prohibitions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (1)(4) of this proposed AD, which identify affected part numbers for the airplanes identified in those paragraphs. The parts installation prohibition for Model 757 and Model 767 airplanes is specified in paragraphs (l)(2) and (l)(3) of this proposed AD, and additional MOV actuator part numbers are identified in those paragraphs as requested by the commenters. We also added “for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves” in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(4) of this proposed AD.
Boeing requested that we revise the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to refer to previously released service information that provides instructions to replace a specific older MOV actuator part number. Boeing stated that note 2 to paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) informs an operator that it
We do not agree with Boeing's request to add a reference to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0088, dated January 25, 2007, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007, both of which are mandated by AD 2008-06-03; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0090, dated July 3, 2008, which is mandated by AD 2009-22-13, Amendment 39-16066 (74 FR 55755, October 29, 2009). We infer that Boeing was expressing its concern that if an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) is found, that part number must be replaced by an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) in accordance with those previously released service bulletins as an approved change to the type design. Then, an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) must be replaced by an MOV actuator having an acceptable part number in accordance with the service information mandated by this proposed AD as an approved change to the type design.
We consider it unnecessary to add a reference to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0088, dated January 25, 2007; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-8A0090, dated July 3, 2008. The type design change provided by the previously released service information discussed above is addressed under AD 2008-06-03 and AD 2009-22-13, and incorporation of that type design change should have been completed for airplanes affected by those two ADs. In addition, this proposed AD covers the airplanes affected by AD 2008-06-03 and AD 2009-22-13 as well as those that are not. The notes to paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) were intended to clarify that operators can use service bulletins mandated by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this proposed AD to remove MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) and replace that part number with acceptable MOV actuator part numbers since those service bulletins do not specifically address removal of MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39). The service information mandated by paragraph (h)(3) of this proposed AD for Model 767 airplanes addresses removal of MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39). We have revised this proposed AD by including the text from the notes to paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) in the regulatory text of their respective paragraphs in this proposed AD.
DAL requested that we clarify whether the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would require removal of an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39). DAL stated that the notes to paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) mention removal of MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39), but removal would not be mandated in the proposed AD (in the NPRM).
We agree that clarification is necessary. Removal of MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) has been mandated by AD 2008-06-03 for certain Model 737 and Model 757 airplanes and by AD 2009-22-13 for certain Model 767 airplanes. Those ADs did not cover airplanes delivered with a later MOV actuator part number. However, for those airplanes not affected by the earlier ADs, the FAA discovered the potential for operators to install MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N 343T003-39) since there was no obvious prohibition of such installation, other than the manufacturer's proprietary drawings that would prohibit the installation. To address this issue, we issued AD 2016-04-20, Amendment 39-18414 (81 FR 10460, March 1, 2016) (“AD 2016-04-20”), to prohibit the installation of MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) on all affected models including future delivery airplanes. For airplanes affected by AD 2008-06-03 or AD 2009-22-13, we consider that it is unlikely to find MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) installed, since such an installation would violate the AD requirements. For airplanes not affected by those earlier ADs, there is a chance to find that part number installed. In such a case, the service information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this proposed AD may be used to remove an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) and replace it with an acceptable MOV actuator part number. We have revised paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to clarify the use of that service information relative to the removal of MOV actuators with P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39). No other changes were made to this proposed AD regarding this issue.
SunExpress Airlines (SXS) stated that paragraph (h) of AD 2016-04-20 requires the replacement of an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) with a different serviceable, FAA-approved MOV actuator. SXS asserted that this requirement would conflict with paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) since MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) are required to be removed by paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) while those part numbers could be allowed for installation under paragraph (h) of AD 2016-04-20.
We infer that SXS is requesting part number clarification. There is no conflict between paragraph (h) of AD 2016-04-20 and paragraph (h) of this proposed AD. Paragraph (h) of AD 2016-04-20 requires removal of MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39). Paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would require removal of MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56). The operators would comply with both paragraph (h) of AD 2016-04-20 and paragraph (h) of this proposed AD by removing MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39), MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66), and MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56), and replacing those part numbers with an acceptable MOV actuator part number, such as P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76).
We agree that AD 2016-04-20 does not specifically prohibit the installation of MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1001 or P/N MA20A2027. This
UAL suggested that we revise the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to mandate a fuel leak check of the engine fuel shutoff valves per the applicable aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) during the modification specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM).
We do not agree with UAL's request. We consider that operators would perform pertinent functional or operational checks recommended in the AMM during the modification specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this proposed AD, as operators would typically perform during maintenance activities. We consider that proper installation would be ensured even if a fuel leak check of the engine fuel shutoff valves would not be specifically mandated by this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
SWA requested that we clarify the initial compliance time specified under paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM): 6 years from “the previous” inspection.
We agree to provide clarification, as well as a change to paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD. The initial compliance time (in the NPRM) was based on the assumption that the inspection specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-24 for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER airplanes would have been accomplished at least once on all affected airplanes before the effective date of the AD.
However, we determined this assumption to be incorrect. Incorporation of AWL No. 28-AWL-24 is mandated by paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2008-06-03. This action is required to be done concurrently with the actions specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2008-06-03. The actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) of AD 2008-06-03 should have been accomplished on all affected airplanes before April 16, 2013. But the inspection specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-24 is not due until six years after the accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007, as mandated by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-06-03, or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, Revision 1, dated April 19, 2010, which was approved as an AMOC to paragraph (g) of AD 2008-06-03. Therefore, accomplishment of the inspection specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-24 may not occur on all affected airplanes prior to April 16, 2019, which is six years after all affected airplanes would had to have accomplished the actions of AD 2008-06-03, as discussed above. Thus, a “previous inspection” may not have occurred on certain affected airplanes.
We have therefore revised paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD to specify that the initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions required by AWL No. 28-AWL-24 is within 6 years since the most recent inspection was performed in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-24, or within 6 years since the accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, dated February 15, 2007, whichever occurs later. We have revised paragraph (i)(2) of this proposed AD in a similar manner to address the same issue associated with AWL No. 28-AWL-25 for Model 757 airplanes.
EASA suggested that we delete the grace period (“or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later”) from paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). EASA stated that this compliance time is unnecessary since a time “prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (h)(1)” will always be later than “within 30 days” after the effective date. EASA also noted that the 30-day compliance time does not appear in paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM).
We do not agree with EASA's request. When we approved Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, which is referenced in paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) of this proposed AD, we did not require incorporation of applicable AWLs into the maintenance or inspection program as part of the service information approval. Therefore, operators who have already accomplished Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, may not have incorporated applicable AWLs that are provided in Section 9 of the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document or Special Compliance Items and Airworthiness Limitations (SCI/AWL) document at the revision levels specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (n)(3) of this proposed AD (paragraph (i)(1) or (k)(2), respectively, of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)). For such operators, paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD provides a grace period of 30 days for incorporation of applicable AWLs into their maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. When we approved Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, dated May 18, 2016, and Revision 1, dated June 19, 2017, and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, dated September 10, 2015, and Revision 1, dated June 2, 2016, we required incorporation of applicable AWLs as part of AMOC approval for AD 2008-06-03 (Model 757) and AD 2009-22-13 (Model 767). This requirement is specified in the Approval section of those service bulletins. Therefore, any operator who has accomplished any of those service bulletins prior to the effective date of the AD should have already incorporated applicable AWLs into their maintenance or inspection program, and it is unnecessary to have a grace period in paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
ANA requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to allow operators to use a later revision of the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: Section 9 of the Boeing Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document or Boeing SCI/AWL document.
We do not agree with ANA's request. We cannot use the phrase “or later FAA-approved revisions,” in an AD when referring to the service document because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials incorporated by reference (see 1 CFR 51.1(f)). We are required to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual (regulatory) AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as referenced material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for incorporation by reference. To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise this proposed AD to refer to specific later
DAL, Solaseed Air, and SWA requested that we clarify paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), or that we revise that paragraph to limit the affected airplanes. The commenters stated that AWL No. 28-AWL-24, specified under paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), is limited to line numbers 1 through 1980 and 1982, but paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would require incorporation of this specific AWL for all airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). SWA also stated that the effectivity of AWL No. 28-AWL-22 is defined by MOV actuator part numbers.
We agree that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (i) of this proposed AD would not require compliance with the AWLs specified in that paragraph. Instead, paragraph (i) of this proposed AD would require the operators to revise their maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating those AWLs. Once the AWLs are incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program, compliance with the AWLs is required by 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c). The effectivity of each AWL is specified in the Applicability section of the AWL. AWL No. 28-AWL-24, required by paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of this proposed AD, applies to line numbers 1 through 1980 and 1982. For any airplane outside this applicability, there is no maintenance action associated with this specific AWL. Therefore, we consider that incorporation of AWL No. 28-AWL-24 as specified by paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of this proposed AD does not impose an extra burden on operators. Furthermore, incorporation of AWL No. 28-AWL-24 would invoke appropriate maintenance actions if an operator acquires an airplane in the future that falls under the effectivity of that AWL. Because of those reasons, we disagree to limit the airplanes affected by paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD.
Regarding AWL No. 28-AWL-22 mentioned by SWA, the AWL applies to all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, but the conditions specified in this AWL must be met by the MOV actuator part numbers specified in the applicability note. For the same rationale as noted above, we have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
SXS requested that we add credit for intermixed part usage until the AD compliance due date. SXS stated that within the 8-year compliance time, the new MOV actuators may be installed at affected locations while the MOV actuators that are to be removed remain installed at other affected locations.
We infer that SXS is requesting us to clarify the intermixed part usage during the AD compliance time. We agree to provide clarification regarding this matter. Operators may install acceptable MOV actuators having part numbers specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD at any affected locations while keeping MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) installed at other affected locations during the AD compliance time. However, for airplanes with this intermixed part configuration, credit is not allowed for compliance with paragraph (h) of this proposed AD. Credit for compliance with paragraph (h) of this proposed AD can be taken only after the installation of acceptable MOV actuator part numbers at all affected locations specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD. Furthermore, once an acceptable MOV actuator part number is installed at any affected location, paragraph (l) of this proposed AD would prohibit the replacement of that MOV actuator part number with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56). We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to refer to all previously released MPD Documents and SCIs that include the AWLs listed in paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). The commenter stated that the current list misses the most recent SCI/AWL revision, Revision September 2016. The commenter also stated that a new SCI/AWL revision is in work and should be referenced in the AD.
We partially agree with Boeing's requests. Revision September 2016 was the latest revision at the time the NPRM was published. Therefore, it was identified under paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii), instead of paragraph (k)(2), of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) identified all acceptable earlier revisions at the time the NPRM was published.
Since the publication of the NPRM, Boeing released a new SCI/AWL revision: Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017. We have revised paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this proposed AD to identify this latest revision, and provided credit for Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision September 2016, in paragraph (n)(3) of this proposed AD (which was paragraph (k)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)).
UAL requested that we revise paragraph (k)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to refer to paragraph (i)(3)(i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), instead of paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). UAL also suggested that we revise paragraph (k)(5) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to add credit for the revisions of the SCI/AWL document that are identified in paragraph (k)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM).
We do not agree with UAL's requests. Paragraph (n)(5) of this proposed AD (which was paragraph (k)(4) in the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) refers to paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD, which includes paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this proposed AD. The revisions of the SCI/AWL document that the commenter requested to be added under paragraph (n)(6) of this proposed AD (which was paragraph (k)(5) in the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) are already identified in paragraph (n)(5) of this proposed AD as credit for the AWL identified in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this proposed AD. Paragraph (n)(6) of this proposed AD identifies an additional revision of the SCI/AWL document that is acceptable for the AWL required by paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE, ST01518SE, or ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
We agree that STC ST00830SE, ST01518SE, or ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
We reviewed the following service information.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, describes procedures for installing new MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
• Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017, describes AWLs for fuel tank ignition prevention on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2017, describes procedures for installing new MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, and of the APU fuel shutoff valve, on Model 757 airplanes.
• Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision February 2017, describes AWLs for fuel tank ignition prevention on Model 757 airplanes.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, Revision 1, dated June 2, 2016, describes procedures for installing new MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, and of the APU fuel shutoff valve, on Model 767 airplanes.
• Boeing 767 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision June 2016, describes AWLs for fuel tank ignition prevention on Model 767 airplanes.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
This proposed AD would also provide terminating action for all certain actions required by AD 2015-19-04, AD 2015-21-09, and AD 2015-21-10, as explained above, under “Requests to Terminate Other ADs.”
This proposed AD would also require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 2,574 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 18, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2015-21-09, Amendment 39-18302 (80 FR 65121, October 26, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-09”); AD 2015-19-04, Amendment 39-18267, (80 FR 55505, September 16, 2015) (“AD 2015-19-04”); and AD 2015-21-10, Amendment 39-18303 (80 FR 65130, October 26, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-10”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Model 737 series airplanes, excluding Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.
(2) Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
(3) Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28; Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of latently failed motor-operated valve (MOV) actuators of the fuel shutoff valves. We are issuing this AD to prevent a latent failure of the actuator for the engine or auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel shutoff valves, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine or the APU, and, in case of certain engine or APU fires, could result in structural failure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine the part numbers of the MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the MOV actuator at each location can be conclusively determined from that review.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine the part numbers of the MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, and of the APU fuel shutoff valve, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2017 (“SB 757-28-0138 R1”); or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, Revision 1, dated June 2, 2016 (“SB 767-28-0115 R1”); as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the MOV actuator at each location can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes on which any MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56 or Boeing P/N S343T003-66, respectively), is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected MOV actuator with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014. Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, specifies the installation of a new MOV actuator, this AD allows the installation of a new or serviceable MOV actuator. While not required by this AD, the Accomplishment Instructions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, for replacing MOV actuators having Boeing P/N S343T003-66 or Boeing P/N S343T003-56 may be used for replacing MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39).
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD on which any MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56 or Boeing P/N S343T003-66, respectively) is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected MOV actuator with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), or P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 757-28-0138 R1. Where SB 757-28-0138 R1, specifies the installation of a new MOV actuator, this AD allows the installation of a new or serviceable MOV actuator. While not required by this AD, the Accomplishment Instructions specified in SB 757-28-0138 R1 for replacing MOV actuators having Boeing P/N S343T003-66 or Boeing P/N S343T003-56 may be used for replacing MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39).
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD on which any MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected MOV actuator with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), or P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 767-28-0115 R1. Where SB 767-28-0115 R1, specifies the installation of a new MOV actuator, this AD allows the installation of a new or serviceable MOV actuator. While not required by this AD, the Accomplishment Instructions specified in SB 767-28-0115 R1, for replacing MOV actuators having Boeing P/N S343T003-66 or Boeing P/N S343T003-56 may be used for replacing MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39).
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions required by AWL No. 28-AWL-24 is within 6 years since the most recent inspection was performed in
(i) AWL No. 28-AWL-21, MOV Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017.
(ii) AWL No. 28-AWL-22, MOV Actuator—Electrical Design Feature, as specified in Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017.
(iii) AWL No. 28-AWL-24, Valve MOV Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add the AWLs specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), and (i)(2)(iii) of this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions required by AWL No. 28-AWL-25 is within 6 years since the most recent inspection was performed in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-25, or within 6 years since the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0088 were accomplished, whichever is later.
(i) AWL No. 28-AWL-23, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision February 2017.
(ii) AWL No. 28-AWL-24, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Electrical Design Feature, as specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision February 2017.
(iii) AWL No. 28-AWL-25, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision February 2017.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add the AWLs specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) AWL No. 28-AWL-23, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 767 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision June 2016.
(ii) AWL No. 28-AWL-24, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Electrical Design Feature, as specified in Boeing 767 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision June 2016.
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(1) of this AD, as applicable, on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, and within 8 years after the effective date of the AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 1 to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(2), and (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable, on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, and within 8 years after the effective date of the AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(3), and (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, and within 8 years after the effective date of the AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, excluding Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Within 30 days since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 4 to paragraph (j)(4) of this AD.
(1) After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(2) After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may replace an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) with an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56 or Boeing P/N S343T003-66, respectively) for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may replace an MOV actuator having P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41), or P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or P/N MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves and the APU fuel shutoff valve.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may replace an MOV actuator having P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41), or P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or P/N MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves and the APU fuel shutoff valve.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, excluding Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39) or replace an MOV actuator with an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56 or Boeing P/N S343T003-66, respectively) for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves.
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j)(l) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD and all of the requirements of AD 2015-21-10.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(2) of this AD and all of the requirements of AD 2015-19-04.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(3) of this AD and all of the requirements of AD 2015-21-09.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, excluding Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (j)(4) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, dated May 18, 2016.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, dated September 10, 2015.
(3) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision July 2016, or Revision September 2016; or Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision October 2014, Revision November 2014, Revision January 2015, or Revision April 2016.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision January 2016, or Revision July 2016.
(5) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 767 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision July 2015, Revision March 2016, Revision May 2016, or Revision May 2016 R1.
(6) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 767 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision October 2014.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (o)(4)(i) and (o)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3553; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its special local regulations for recurring marine parades, regattas, and other events in Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley. This rule, if adopted, would add 17 new recurring special local regulations, remove 9 special local regulations, and amend the event/sponsor, dates, and/or regulated areas for 48 recurring special local regulations already listed in the current table. This action in necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual marine
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 18, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0064 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Petty Officer Joshua Herriott, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779-5343, email
The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) proposes to amend 33 CFR 100.801 to update the table of annual recurring special local regulations in Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley. The current list of annual and recurring special local regulations occurring in Sector Ohio Valley is published in Table 1 of 33 CFR part 100.801. The table was created through the final rule published on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25511). It needs to be amended to include new regattas and marine events expected to recur annually or biannually, remove special local regulations no longer recurring, and provide new information on existing special local regulations.
The proposed annually recurring special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. Based on the nature of these marine events, large numbers of participants and spectators, and event locations, the COTP has determined that the events listed in this proposed rule could pose a risk to participants or waterways users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the events. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectators or mariners traversing through the regulated area. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users, including event participants and spectators, this proposed rule would establish special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event. Vessels would not be permitted to enter the regulated areas unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The Coast Guard is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with a 15-day prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section (d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). This provision authorizes an agency to publish a rule in less than 30 days before its effective date for “good cause found and published with the rule.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this NPRM with a 15-day comment period because it is impractical to provide a 30-day comment period. These proposed regulated areas are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons during the marine events. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM with a 30-day comment period because we must establish some of these updates as early as the end of April 2018. A 15-day comment period would allow the Coast Guard to provide for public notice and comment, but also update the regulated areas soon enough that the length of the notice and comment period does not compromise public safety.
The COTP proposes to amend its special local regulations for annual events in Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley listed in Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.801. This section requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring special local regulations in Sector Ohio Valley. This rule would add 17 new recurring special local regulations, remove 9 special local regulations no longer recurring, and amend the event/sponsor, dates, and/or regulated areas for 48 recurring special local regulations already listed in the current table. Other than these 17 additions, 9 removals, and 48 changes to the event/sponsor, dates, and/or locations of certain events, the regulations of 33 CFR 100.801 and other provisions in Table 1 of § 100.801 remain unchanged.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 Table 1 by adding 17 new special local regulations. The 17 special local regulations being added to Table 1 are below:
The Coast Guard also proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 100.801 Table 1 by removing the following 9 existing special local regulations that are no longer recurring, with reference by line number to the current Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.801. The 9 existing special local regulations being removed are below:
In addition, the Coast Guard proposes to revise regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 Table 1 by amending 48 existing special local regulations listed in the table. The amendments involve changes to the marine event event/sponsor title, dates, and/or regulated areas, with reference by line number to Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.801. The 48 special local regulations being amended are below:
The amendments to Table 1 are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual events taking place on or near navigable waters in Sector Ohio Valley. Although this proposed rule would be in effect year-round, the specific special local regulations listed in Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.801 would only be enforced during the specified period of time of annual events listed. In accordance with the regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.801(a)-(j), entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text of the updated Table 1 of § 100.801 we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs through a budgeting process.
This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the special local regulations. These areas are limited in size and duration, and usually do not affect high vessel traffic areas. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the areas, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule 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 proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires
We have analyzed this proposed 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 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its safety zone regulations for annual events in Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley that are listed in the
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 18, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0065 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Petty Officer Joshua Herriott, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779-5343, email
The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.801 to update the table of annual fireworks displays and other marine-related events in Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley. The current list of annual and recurring safety zones occurring in Sector Ohio Valley is published in Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.801. That most recent table was created through the final rule published on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25965). The current table in 33 CFR 165.801 needs to be amended to include new safety zones expected to recur annually or biannually and provide new information on existing safety zones.
The proposed annually recurring safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. Based on the nature of these marine events, large numbers of
This purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zones during the scheduled events. Vessels would not be permitted to enter the safety zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The Coast Guard is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with a 15-day prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section (d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). This provision authorizes an agency to publish a rule in less than 30 days before its effective date for “good cause found and published with the rule.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for publishing this NPRM with a 15-day comment period because it is impractical to provide a 30-day comment period. These proposed safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons during the marine events. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM with a 30-day comment period because we must establish some of these updates as early as the end of April 2018. A 15-day comment period would allow the Coast Guard to provide for public notice and comment, but also update the safety zones soon enough that the length of the notice and comment period does not compromise public safety.
The COTP proposes to amend its safety zone regulations for annual events in Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley listed in Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.801. This section requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring safety zone regulations in Sector Ohio Valley. This rule would add 23 new recurring safety zones and amend the event/sponsor, dates, and/or regulated areas for 31 recurring safety zones already listed in the current table. Other than these 23 new safety zones and 31 changes to the event/sponsor, dates, and/or locations of certain events, the regulations of 33 CFR 165.801 and the other provisions in Table 1 of § 165.801 would remain unchanged.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1 by adding 23 new safety zones. The 23 safety zones being added to Table 1 are below:
The Coast Guard also proposes to revise regulations at 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1 by amending 31 existing safety zones listed in the current table. The amendments involve changes to marine event dates and/or regulated areas, with reference by line number to the current Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.801. The 31 safety zones being amended are below:
The amendments to this rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual events taking place on or near navigable waters in Sector Ohio Valley. Although this proposed rule would be in effect year-round, the specific safety zones listed in Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.801 would only be enforced during a specified period of time coinciding with the happening of the annual events listed. In accordance with the regulations listed in 33 CFR 165.801(a)-(d), entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text of the updated Table 1 of § 165.801 we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zones. These safety zones are limited in size and duration, and are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U.S. Coast Guard proposes to amend 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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Ohio's request for withdrawal of the previously approved Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) State Plan. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted its HMIWI withdrawal on January 24, 2018, certifying that there is only one HMIWI unit currently operating in the state of Ohio and requesting that the Federal Plan apply to the single source in the State.
Comments must be received on or before May 3, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0113, at
Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-1151, [email protected].
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires that EPA develop regulations providing that states must submit to EPA plans establishing standards of performance for certain existing sources of pollutants. A standard of performance would apply to the existing source if it were an existing source, and if the pollutants are noncriteria pollutants (
The regulation at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B contains general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans for subject facilities under sections 111(d) and 129 (111(d)/129 plan). 40 CFR part 62, subpart A provides the procedural framework for the submission of the plans.
EPA promulgated new source performance standards and EGs for HMIWIs on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48382), and amended them most recently on October 6, 2009 (74 FR 51367) and April 4, 2011 (76 FR 18407). The standards and EGs are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ce and Ec, respectively.
States were required to revise plans for existing HMIWIs, pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. OEPA submitted a HMIWI State Plan on October 18, 2005. EPA approved the State Plan under 40 CFR 62.8880, and the State Plan became effective on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 36605). On May 13, 2013, EPA finalized the Federal Plan under 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH (78 FR 28052).
A HMIWI unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.31e, means any device that combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste. The designated facilities to which the original EG's applied were existing HMIWI units that: (1) For which construction was commenced on or before June 20, 1996, or for which modification was commenced on or before March 16, 1998; or (2) For which construction was commenced after June 20, 1996, but no later than December 1, 2008, or for which modification is commenced after March 16, 1998, but no later than April 6, 2010.
On January 21, 2018, OEPA submitted its HMIWI withdrawal, in which it certifies that there is only one HMIWI unit currently operating in Ohio. On January 18, 2013, OEPA confirmed that two of the four HMIWI units had shut down. Since that time an additional HMIWI unit has shut down. The only remaining HMIWI unit is at Stericycle, Inc, located in Warren, OH. Because there is only one source, OEPA is requesting that the previously approved State Plan be withdrawn and that the Federal Plan apply to the source.
Although Section 111(d) requires States to submit State Plans, EPA understands that the extensive amendments that would be required by OEPA to revise Ohio's previously approved State Plan to make it consistent with the revisions would be disproportionate to the single affected source in Ohio. EPA's Federal Plan implementing the EG's would apply to the remaining source in Ohio (as well as to any existing affected sources if found at a later date). Ohio would be implementing and enforcing the Federal Plan through its Title V permitting process. This action should not be construed as an approval of a State Plan or delegation of the Federal Plan and that Ohio's Section 111(d)/129 obligations are separate from Ohio's obligations under Title V of the Act. Ohio understands and accepts this limitation.
EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's request for withdrawal of a previously approved State Plan and amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect OEPA's withdrawal. OEPA submitted its HMIWI withdrawal on January 21, 2018 certifying that there is only one HMIWI unit, as defined under 40 CFR 60.31e, currently operating in the state of Ohio and requested that the Federal Plan apply to the single source in the State. EPA understands that the extensive amendments that would be required by OEPA to revise Ohio's previously approved State Plan to make it consistent with the revisions would be disproportionate to the single affected source in Ohio, and is proposing to approve the withdrawal and have the Federal Plan apply to the known affected source.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under E.O. 12866. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and merely notifies the public of EPA' approval for a withdrawal of a previously approved HMIWI State Plan. This action imposes no requirements beyond those imposed by the state. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. With regard to withdrawals for designated facilities received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the approval of the State's withdrawal and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a section 111(d)/129 withdrawal for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a section 111(d)/129 withdrawal, to use VCS in place of a section 111(d)/129 withdrawal submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1 (Abbreviated Framework 1) to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would reduce the commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) for red grouper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. The purpose of the proposed rule is to address the overfishing of red grouper.
Written comments must be received by May 3, 2018.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0162” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Electronic copies of Abbreviated Framework 1, which includes an environmental assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from
Frank Helies, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region is managed under the FMP and includes red grouper, along with other snapper-grouper species. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). All weights described in this proposed rule are in round weight.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation.
In 2010, NMFS determined that the South Atlantic red grouper stock was undergoing overfishing and was overfished following a stock assessment (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 19). Through Amendment 24 to the FMP, the Council and NMFS implemented a 10-year rebuilding plan in 2011, with a projected end date of 2020, which was
In February 2017, a standard stock assessment for red grouper was completed (SEDAR 53). Based on the results of SEDAR 53, NMFS notified the Council on September 27, 2017, that the red grouper stock is overfished, is undergoing overfishing, and is not making adequate rebuilding progress according to its rebuilding plan. Based on projections from SEDAR 53, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) provided an acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation to the Council. The Council accepted that ABC recommendation, and then revised the red grouper ACLs in Abbreviated Framework 1.
In addition to this current rulemaking for Abbreviated Framework 1, the Council and NMFS are developing a new red grouper rebuilding plan through Amendment 42 to the FMP (Amendment 42). The Council is also considering changes to red grouper management measures through Regulatory Amendments 26 and 27 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP. NMFS and the Council intend to implement Abbreviated Framework 1 to reduce the sector ACLs below the overfishing limit to address overfishing while Amendment 42, Regulatory Amendment 26, and Regulatory Amendment 27 are developed and implemented.
This proposed rule would revise the ACLs for South Atlantic red grouper for both the commercial and recreational sectors. The current total ACL (commercial and recreational ACL combined) is 780,000 lb (353,802 kg). The total ACL is divided into a commercial sector ACL of 343,200 lb (155,673 kg) and a recreational sector ACL of 436,800 lb (198,129 kg). The ACLs are based on the sector allocation ratio developed by the Council for red grouper (44 percent commercial and 56 percent recreational) established in Amendment 24 (77 FR 34254; June 11, 2012).
Consistent with the results of SEDAR 53 and the ABC recommendation from the SSC accepted by the Council, this proposed rule would reduce the total, commercial, and recreational ACLs. The commercial ACL would be set at 61,160 lb (27,742 kg), for 2018, 66,000 lb (29,937 kg), for 2019, and 71,280 lb (32,332 kg), for 2020 and subsequent fishing years. The recreational ACL would be set at 77,840 lb (35,308 kg), for 2018, 84,000 lb (38,102 kg), for 2019, and 90,720 lb (41,150 kg), for 2020 and subsequent fishing years. The total ACL would be set at 139,000 lb (63,049 kg) for 2018, 150,000 lb (68,039 kg) for 2019, and 162,000 lb (73,482 kg) for 2020 and subsequent fishing years. The total ACLs are equal to the SSC's ABC recommendation, and this proposed rule does not change the sector allocations.
As a result of the proposed ACLs being set lower than the overfishing limit (at the yield at 75 percent F
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Abbreviated Framework 1, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
This proposed rule would reduce the total, commercial, and recreational ACLs for South Atlantic red grouper. Because the RFA does not apply to recreational anglers, only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed; any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses would be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and would, therefore, be indirect in nature. The RFA does not consider indirect impacts.
This proposed rule would directly affect only federally permitted commercial snapper-grouper fishermen fishing for red grouper in the South Atlantic. As described in Abbreviated Framework 1, the revised commercial ACLs would be 61,160 lb (27,742 kg) for 2018, 66,000 lb (29,937 kg) for 2019, and 71,280 lb (32,332 kg) for 2020 and beyond. Commercial landings of South Atlantic red grouper have been decreasing, particular in the last five years (2012-2016), with projected 2017 landings of approximately 35,000 lb (15,875 kg). If this trend continues or levels off, the likelihood of reaching the proposed commercial ACL in 2018 and beyond would be very low. In the unlikely event that commercial landings increase in 2018 and beyond as to reach the proposed commercial ACLs, the effects of the commercial ACL reduction would be relatively small because only approximately 2.7 percent of total commercial snapper-grouper vessel revenues have historically been derived from red grouper.
The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Overfishing, Recreational, Red grouper, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(d)
(ii) If the commercial landings for red grouper, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the commercial ACL, specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL, specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, is exceeded during the same fishing year, and the species is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the commercial ACL in the following fishing year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
(iii) The commercial ACL for red grouper is 61,160 lb (27,742 kg), round weight, for 2018; 66,000 lb (29,937 kg), round weight, for 2019; and 71,280 lb (32,332 kg), round weight, for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.
(2)
(ii) The recreational ACL for red grouper is 77,840 lb (35,308 kg), round weight, for 2018; 84,000 lb (38,102 kg), round weight, for 2019; and 90,720 lb (41,150 kg), round weight, for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.
(iii) If recreational landings for red grouper, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL, specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, then during the following fishing year recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season and the recreational ACL by the amount of the recreational ACL overage, if the species is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, and if the combined commercial and recreational ACL, specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, is exceeded during the same fishing year. The AA will use the best scientific information available to determine if reducing the length of the recreational season and recreational ACL is necessary. When the recreational sector is closed as a result of NMFS reducing the length of the recreational fishing season and ACL, the bag and possession limits for red grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero.
(3) The combined commercial and recreational ACL for red grouper is 139,000 lb (63,049 kg), round weight, for 2018; 150,000 lb (68,039 kg), round weight, for 2019; and 162,000 lb (73,482 kg), round weight, for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; correction.
This action corrects an error in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that set a control date for the Northeast Multispecies charter/party fishery. This action is necessary because the document provided an incorrect internet address for submission of electronic comments. This action is intended to provide the correct internet address to ensure the public can easily access the online rulemaking portal.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0042 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Spencer Talmage, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9232.
On March 19, 2018, we published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to set a new control date for the Northeast Multispecies charter/party fishery (83 FR 11952). The internet address to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal provided in the
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).
Notice of a new System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), proposes to establish a new system of records entitled, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Requests and Administrative Appeals Files, to cover both electronic and paper files created during the processing of access requests and appeals under the FOIA and PA and amendment requests under the PA in all USDA components with the exception of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) whom maintains its own system of records for these types of files. The OCIO is also deleting USDA/OCIO-01—Freedom of Information Act Express (FX) published at 76 FR 54190 (August 31, 2011) because the new system would be duplicative.
This notice will be effective without further notice on June 4, 2018 unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate comments received from the public. Written or electronic comments must be received by the contact person listed below on or before May 3, 2018 to be assured consideration.
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress are invited to submit any comments to USDA, Attn: Department FOIA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 428-W, Washington, DC 20250, or by email to
Alexis R. Graves, Department FOIA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 428-W, Washington, DC 20250.
This system of record notice (SORN) extends the coverage previously provided in USDA/OCIO-01—Freedom of Information Act Express (FX) to include other internal tracking systems in addition to electronic and paper files. As such, the new system conveys updated system locations, categories of records, routine uses one of which permits records to be provided to the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services for purposes set forth under 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(2)(A-B) and (3), storage, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager and address, notification procedures, records access, and contesting procedures.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Requests and Administrative Appeals Files. USDA/OCIO-03.
None.
The records in this system are maintained at 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250. n USDA's enterprise wide tracking system, in other tracking systems maintained by USDA components, and in offices throughout the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and USDA offices abroad.
Ravoyne Payton, Associate Chief Information Officer; Policy, E-Government and Fair Information Practices; 1400 Independence Avenue, Room 428-W, Washington, DC 20250
A listing of the system managers and addresses by USDA component is available at
FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended; The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended.
Only authorized USDA FOIA and PA officials will utilize this system to effectively monitor and track access requests and administrative appeals under the FOIA and PA; to process access requests under the FOIA and PA; to amend requests under the PA; to manage fees and calculations under the FOIA; and to satisfy USDA's reporting obligations under the FOIA and PA.
This system contains records on individuals or their representatives who have submitted FOIA or PA requests for records and/or FOIA administrative appeals with the USDA; individuals whose FOIA or PA requests for records have been referred to the USDA by other Federal agencies; individuals who are the subject of or are named in such FOIA or PA requests or appeals; attorneys or other persons representing individuals submitting such FOIA or PA requests and appeals; and/or the USDA personnel assigned to handle such FOIA or PA requests and appeals.
This system consists of records created or compiled in response to FOIA requests, PA requests or both FOIA/PA requests for records or subsequent administrative appeals to include: The requester's name, address, telephone number, email address; amount of fees paid, and payment delinquencies, if any; the original requests and administrative appeals; responses to such requests and appeals; all related memoranda, correspondence, notes, and other related or supporting documentation, summary of log, and in some instances copies of requested records and records under administrative appeal.
Since these FOIA/PA case records contain inquiries and requests seeking access to records in other USDA systems of records subject to the PA, information about individuals from any of these other systems may become part of this FOIA and PA File System.
Information in this system of records is obtained from the individual
USDA 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 a purpose for which the record was collected.
A. 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.
B. When a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, foreign, State, local, or tribal, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prosecute responsibility of the receiving entity.
C. 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.
D. To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
E. 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.
F. To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
G. To a Federal agency in order to obtain advice and recommendations concerning matters on which the agency has specialized experience or particular competence, for use in making required determinations under the FOIA and PA.
H. To a submitter or subject of a record or information in order to obtain assistance to the Department in making a determination as to access or amendment.
I. To the appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised;
2. USDA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of systems or programs (whether maintained by the UDSA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with USDA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm for purposes of facilitating responses and remediation efforts in the event of a data breach.
Paper records are kept in file folders in locked file cabinets. Electronic records are kept in various computer databases, a web-based portal maintained by OCIO's service provider, and in electronic files maintained by the USDA's component offices.
Electronic and paper records are generally retrieved by the name of the requester, component's tracking number, or the subject of the request.
Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 14, but may be retained for a longer period as required by litigation, open investigation, and/or audit.
Information in this system is safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and policies including USDA's automated systems security and access policies. In general, records and technical equipment are maintained in buildings with restricted access. The required use of password protection identification features and other system protection methods also restrict access. Access is limited to those employees who have an official need for access in order to perform their duty.
Records concerning initial requests under the FOIA and the Privacy Act and administrative appeals are maintained by the individual USDA component to which the initial request or administrative appeal was addressed or directed. Inquiries or requests for access regarding these records should be addressed to the particular USDA component maintaining the records. If the USDA component is unknown, contact the USDA Department FOIA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 428-W, Washington, DC 20250.
Your full name and current address should accompany requests for access. You will also be required at a minimum to sign your request. Your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. In addition, the request for access should (1) explain why you believe the USDA component would have information on you and (2) if known, when you believe the records would have been created. Without the above information, the USDA component may be unable to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
An individual, who is the subject of a record in the system, may access those records that are not exempt from disclosure. A determination whether a record may be accessed will be made at the time a request is received.
If you are seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must obtain a statement from that individual certifying their agreement for you to access their records.
When seeking to contest or amend information about you maintained in the system, direct your requests to the USDA component you believe maintains the record. Be sure to state clearly and concisely what information is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the information sought.
Same as Record Access Procedures.
During the course of a FOIA and/or PA action, material from systems of records may become part of the case records in this system of records. To the extent that copies of these records from these other systems of records are entered into these PA case records, USDA hereby claims the same status for the records as claimed in the original, primary system of records from which they originated, or in which they are maintained.
This new system of record notice broadens coverage beyond the enterprise wide tracking system previously referenced in soon to be deleted USDA/OCIO-01—Freedom of Information Act Express (FX) to include other internal tracking systems in addition to electronic and paper files. The new notice also conveys updates to the system location, categories of records, routine uses one of which permits records to be provided to the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services for purposes set forth under 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(2)(A-B) and (3), storage, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager and address, notification procedures, records access, and contesting procedures.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Department”) announces adjusted income eligibility guidelines to be used by State agencies in determining the income eligibility of persons applying to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These income eligibility guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the WIC Regulations.
Implementation date July 1, 2018.
Kurtria Watson, Chief, Policy Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, FNS, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 605-4387.
This notice is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.
This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 48 FR 29100, June 24, 1983, and 49 FR 22675, May 31, 1984).
Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(A)), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income-eligible for the WIC Program only if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted.
Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2018 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at 83 FR 2642, January 18, 2018. The guidelines published by HHS are referred to as the “poverty guidelines.”
Section 246.7(d)(1) of the WIC regulations (Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations) specifies that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under Section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals, or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar.
At this time, the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid Program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396,
The table of this Notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, and all United States Territories, including Guam. Separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been
42 U.S.C. 1786.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Siskiyou (OR) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Harbor, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on April 25, 2018, 9:30 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Harbor Water Public Utilities District, 98069 West Benham Lane, Harbor, Oregon.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Virginia Gibbons, Public Affairs Officer, by phone at (541) 618-2113 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review projects previously authorized under Title II of the Act; and
2. Review and make proposed fee changes for fee sites on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 11, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda.
Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Virginia Gibbons, Public Affairs Officer, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon 97504; by phone at (541) 618-2113, by email at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent to revise the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison Land and Resource Management Plan and to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, is revising the existing Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests' Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its revised Forest Plan.
This notice briefly describes the preliminary needs for change that will be used to develop a revised Forest Plan, the nature of the decision to be made, and information concerning public participation. This notice also describes estimated dates for filing the EIS, the name and address of the responsible agency officials, and the individuals who can provide additional information. Finally, this notice identifies the applicable planning rule that will be used for completing the plan revision.
Comments concerning the preliminary need for change provided in this notice must be received by May 3, 2018. The Draft EIS is expected in the spring of 2019, and the Final EIS is expected in the spring of 2020.
Comments may be submitted electronically online at
Forest Plan Revision Team Leader Samantha Staley o (970-874-6666) or Assistant Forest Planner Brittany Duffy (970-874-6649) via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
The revised GMUG Forest Plan will replace the existing 1983 GMUG Forest Plan, as amended. The existing Forest Plan will remain in effect until the revised Forest Plan takes effect. In response to this notice we are asking for comments on the preliminary need for change, distinctive role and contribution of the Forests, and proposed management area framework. The full text of the preliminary need for change and additional materials and information on public engagement opportunities can be found at
The purpose and need for revising the current Forest Plan is (1) the 1983 Forest Plan, as amended, needs revision per the National Forest Management Act, which requires Forest Plans to be revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle, and (2) to address the preliminary needs for change to the existing plan, which are summarized below. Preliminary needs for change are identified to respond to new requirements per the Forest Service's 2012 Land Management Planning Rule (36 CFR 219); to address changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions; and to use the best available scientific information. An assessment of the conditions and trends of the Forests' ecological, social, and economic resources, informed by public input, has helped to identify these preliminary needs for changing the existing Forest Plan. A summary of the preliminary needs for change follows.
Three overarching needs for change, or principles, emerged throughout the assessment process: (1) Provide direction that reflects the best available science and management approaches, and yet remains durable and relevant through time in our rapidly changing environment; (2) Provide more strategic, adaptive direction than the often prescriptive, tactical direction in the current Forest Plan. Adaptive direction should provide for greater durability; and (3) Create a plan that is more purposeful, accessible and useful to the public and agency personnel. The current Forest Plan is unwieldy and overly complicated.
These principles will be used to implement the requirements of the 2012 planning rule, which requires that the revised Forest Plan:
• Contribute to social and economic sustainability by providing people and communities with a range of social and economic benefits for present and future generations. These benefits include water, timber production, grazing, recreation, energy resources, and additional multiple uses.
• Provide for ecological sustainability by maintaining or restoring ecological integrity; air, soil and water; and riparian areas, taking into account stressors such as wildland fire, insect and disease, and changes in climate.
• Provide for ecological conditions to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities, including additional consideration for threatened and endangered species, species of conservation concern, and species of public interest.
• Designate areas suitable for timber production and provide for sustainable recreation.
Furthermore, the 2012 planning rule requires the GMUG, during the Forest Plan revision process, to:
• Identify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
• Identify eligible rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The proposed action is to revise the Forest Plan in order to address these identified needs for change to the existing Forest Plan. The revised Forest Plan will include forest-wide and geographic/management area-specific desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and the designation of lands suitable for timber production. Development of alternatives will be guided by the scoping process.
The responsible official who will approve the Record of Decision for the GMUG National Forests' revised Forest Plan is Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor for the GMUG National Forests, 2250 S. Main St., Delta, CO 81416.
The responsible official will decide whether the required plan components (desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability) are sufficient to promote the ecological integrity and sustainability of the GMUG National Forests' ecosystems, watersheds, and diverse plant and animal communities. In addition, the responsible official will decide whether the required plan components for the GMUG National Forests' multiple uses and ecosystem services are sufficient to contribute to social and economic sustainability for people and communities.
This proposed action is programmatic in nature and guides future implementation of site-specific projects. Additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance may be required for site-specific projects as part of a two-stage decision making process (40 CFR 1508.23, 42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(C)), 36 CFR 219.7(f)).
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the Draft Forest Plan and Draft EIS. We are seeking your input to continue to develop the GMUG National Forests' revised Forest Plan.
Public webinars will be held to provide additional information and address questions related to this scoping notice. Dates and locations will be posted on the GMUG Forest Plan Revision website at
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns as well as proposed solutions.
Only those individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to the GMUG National Forests' plan revision during the formal opportunities provided for public comment (beginning with this Notice of Intent) throughout the planning process will be eligible to file an objection (36 CFR 219.53(a)). The decision to approve the revised Forest Plan for the GMUG National Forests will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62).
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. 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.
The GMUG National Forest plan revision website at
The 2012 planning rule is explained in more detail on the Forest Service website at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's website at:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2018, at 1:00 p.m.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Forest Service Center, 8221 Mount Rushmore Road, Rapid City, South Dakota.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide:
(1) Ethics Training;
(2) Information Topic: Forest Staffing and Seasonal Hiring;
(3) Black Hills Resilient Landscape Project update;
(4) 2018 Fire Season Preparedness; and
(5) 2018 Fire Season Outlook.
The meeting is open to the public and transcripts, documents and minutes will be made available for public inspection. The U.S. Forest Service will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Chairman may allow the public to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by April 9, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to
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), herein referred to as RUS or the Agency, announces its Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Grant Program application window for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. The Agency is publishing the amount of funding received in the appropriations act on its website at
In addition to announcing the application window, RUS announces the minimum and maximum amounts for DLT grants applicable for the fiscal year. The DLT Grant Program regulation can be found at 7 CFR part 1734, subpart B. This DLT Grant Program regulation replaced the previous DLT Grant Program regulation, 7 CFR part 1703, subpart E, on December 27, 2017.
Submit completed paper or electronic applications for grants according to the following deadlines:
•
•
• If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.
Copies of the FY 2018 Application Guide and materials for the DLT Grant Program may be obtained through:
(1) The DLT website at
(2) The RUS Office of Loan Origination and Approval at 202-720-0800.
(1)
(2)
Shawn Arner, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Loan Origination and Approval, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, telephone: (202) 720-0800, fax:1-884-885-8179.
DLT grants are designed to provide access to education, training, and health care resources for rural Americans. The DLT Program is authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa and provides financial assistance to encourage and improve telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents. The regulation for the DLT Program can be found at 7 CFR part 1734.
The grants, which are awarded through a competitive process, may be used to fund telecommunications-enabled information, audio and video equipment, and related advanced technologies which extend educational and medical access into rural areas. Grants are intended to benefit end users in rural areas, who are often not in the same location as the source of the educational or health care service.
As in years past, the FY 2018 DLT Grant Application Guide has been updated based on program experience. The Application Guide has also been updated to reflect the new program regulations, 7 CFR 1734. All applicants should carefully review and prepare their applications according to instructions in the FY 2018 Application Guide and sample materials. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's own risk.
Under 7 CFR 1734.24, the Administrator will establish the maximum and minimum amounts of a grant to be made available to an individual recipient for each fiscal year. For FY 2018 the minimum amount of a grant is set at $50,000 and the maximum amount is set at $500,000.
The Agency will make awards, and the successful applicants will be required to execute documents appropriate to the project before funding will be advanced. Award documents specify the term of each award. The standard grant agreement is available at
a. Only entities legally organized as one of the following are eligible for DLT Grant Program financial assistance:
i. An incorporated organization;
ii. An Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b (b) and (c);
iii. A state or local unit of government;
iv. A consortium, as defined in 7 CFR 1734.3; or
v. Other legal entity, including a private corporation organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis.
b. Corporations that have been convicted of a Federal felony within the past 24 months are not eligible. Any corporation that has been assessed to have any unpaid federal tax liability, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed and is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance.
c. Applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and have an active registration at time of application submittal with current information in the System for Award Management (SAM) (previously the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)) at
The DLT Program requires matching contributions for grants. See 7 CFR 1734.22 and the FY 2018 Application Guide for information on required matching contributions.
a. Grant applicants must demonstrate matching contributions, in cash or in kind (new or non-depreciated items), of at least fifteen (15) percent of the grant amount requested. Matching contributions must be used for approved purposes for grants (see 7 CFR 1734.21 and Section D(7)(b) of this Notice).
b. Applications that do not provide sufficient documentation of the required 15 percent match will be declared ineligible.
c. Discounts and Donations. In review of applications submitted in the past, it was determined that vendor donated matches did not have value without a required, subsequent purchase of vendor equipment or licenses with grant funds. For example, in many grant applications, software licenses were donated in satisfaction of the matching requirement. However, such licenses only worked with, and thus only had value with, the same vendor's equipment. Additionally, by side agreement, grant applicants were required to purchase the vendor's equipment once the grant was made with grant funds. The agency determined that such a practice violated federal procurement standards found at 2 CFR 200.317-326, given that the grant
d. Eligible Equipment and Facilities. See 7 CFR 1734 and the FY 2018 Application Guide for more information regarding eligible and ineligible items.
a. Ineligibility of Projects in Coastal Barrier Resources Act Areas. Projects located in areas covered by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501
The FY 2018 Application Guide provides specific, detailed instructions for each item of a complete application. The Agency emphasizes the importance of including every required item and strongly encourages applicants to follow the instructions carefully, using the examples and illustrations in the FY 2018 Application Guide. Prior to official submission of applications, applicants may request technical assistance or other application guidance from the Agency, as long as such requests are made prior to May 18, 2018. Agency contact information can be found in Section G of this NOSA. The Agency will not solicit or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline; however the Agency reserves the right to contact applicants to seek clarification on materials contained in the submitted application. See the FY 2018 Application Guide for a full discussion of each required item. For requirements of completed grant applications, refer to 7 CFR 1734.25.
The FY 2018 Application Guide, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the DLT Program regulation are available as follows:
a. Electronic Copies are available at
b. Paper Copies are available from the Rural Utilities Service, Office of Loan Origination and Approval, 202-720-0800.
a. Carefully review the FY 2018 DLT Application Guide and 7 CFR part 1734, which detail all necessary forms and worksheets. A table summarizing the necessary components of a complete application can be found in this section.
b. Description of Project Sites. Most DLT grant projects contain several project sites. Site information must be consistent throughout the application. The Agency has provided a site worksheet that lists the required information. Applicants should complete the site worksheet with all requisite information. Applications without consistent site information will be returned as ineligible.
c. Submission of Application Items. Given the high volume of program interest, applicants should submit the required application items in the order indicated in the FY 2018 Application Guide. Applications that are not assembled and tabbed in the specified order prevent timely determination of eligibility. For applications with inconsistencies among submitted copies, the Agency will base its evaluation on the original signed application received.
d. Table of Required Application Items.
e. Number of copies of submitted applications.
i. Paper submissions. Submit the original application and one (1) paper copy to RUS, as well as one digital copy on a Flash Drive. Submit one additional copy to the state government single point of contact as described in Subsection
ii. Electronic submissions. Submit the electronic application once. Do not send a paper copy to RUS. Applicants should identify and number each page in the same manner as the paper application. Submit one (1) additional copy to the State government single point of contact as described in Subsection
iii. State Government Single Point of Contact. Submit one (1) copy to the State government single point of contact, if one has been designated, at the same time as application submission to the Agency. If the project is located in more than one State, submit a copy to each applicable State government single point of contact. Go to
The applicant for a grant must supply a DUNS number as part of the application. The applicant can obtain the DUNS number free of charge by calling Dun and Bradstreet. Go to
Prior to submitting a paper or an electronic application, the applicant must register in SAM at
a. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 4, 2018 to be eligible for FY 2018 grant funding. Late applications, applications which do not include proof of mailing or shipping, and incomplete applications are not eligible for FY 2018 grant funding.
i. Address paper applications to the Telecommunications Program, RUS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 2844, STOP 1597, Washington, DC 20250-1597. Applications should be marked, “Attention: Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Loan Origination and Approval.”
ii. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping by the deadline consisting of one of the following:
A. A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark;
B. A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or
C. A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
iii. Due to screening procedures at the USDA, packages arriving via regular mail through the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents and delay delivery to RUS. RUS encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure when selecting their application delivery method.
b. Electronic grant applications must be received no later than June 4, 2018 to be eligible for FY 2018 funding. Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for FY 2018 grant funding.
i. Applications will not be accepted via fax or electronic mail.
ii. Electronic applications for grants must be submitted through the Federal government's
iii.
iv. If system errors or technical difficulties occur, use the customer support resources available at the
c. If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.
The DLT Grant Program is subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” As stated in section D(2)(e)(iii) of this notice, a copy of a DLT grant application must be submitted to the state single point of contact, if one has been designated.
a. Hub sites located in non-rural areas are not eligible for grant assistance unless they are necessary to provide DLT services to rural residents at end user sites. See 7 CFR 1734.2(h).
b. Ineligible and Eligible Items. Applicants should exclude ineligible items and ineligible matching contributions from the budget unless those items are clearly documented as vital to the project. See the FY 2018 Application Guide for a recommended budget format and detailed budget compilation instructions.
Grant applications are scored competitively and are subject to the criteria listed below. See 7 CFR 1734.26, the FY 2018 Application Guide, and the funding opportunity posted on
a.
b.
c.
i. Economic characteristics.
ii. Educational challenges.
iii. Health care needs.
d.
i. Telemedicine projects which propose to provide treatment and counseling services for opioid abuse; and
ii. Distance learning projects which propose to provide access to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) courses.
Grant applications are ranked by the final score. RUS selects applications based on those rankings, subject to the availability of funds. In addition, the Agency has the authority to limit the number of applications selected in any one state or for any one project during a fiscal year. See 7 CFR 1734.27 for a description of the grant application selection process. In addition, an application receiving fewer points can be selected over a higher scoring application in the event that there are insufficient funds available to cover the costs of the higher scoring application, as stated in 7 CFR 1734.27(b)(3).
a. In addition to ranking the applications based on the scoring criteria, the Agency evaluates grant applications on the following items, in accordance with 7 CFR 1734.27(c):
i. Financial feasibility. A proposal that does not indicate financial feasibility or that is not sustainable will not be approved for an award.
ii. Technical considerations. An application that contains flaws that would prevent the successful implementation, operation, or sustainability of the project will not be approved for an award.
iii. Other aspects of proposals that contain inadequacies that would undermine the ability of the project to comply with the policies of the DLT Program.
RUS notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by mailing or emailing a copy of an award letter. The receipt of an award letter does not authorize the applicant to commence performance under the award. After sending the award letter, the Agency will send an agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant. An applicant must execute and return the grant agreement, accompanied by any additional items required by the agreement, within the number of days specified in the selection notice letter.
The items listed in Section E of this notice, the DLT Grant Program regulation, FY 2018 Application Guide and accompanying materials implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements, which include but are not limited to:
a. Executing a DLT Grant Agreement.
b. Using Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements (along with the submission of receipts for expenditures, timesheets, and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement).
c. Providing annual project performance activity reports until the expiration of the award.
d. Ensuring that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing DLT grant funds and matching funds (receipts for expenditures are to be included in this documentation).
e. Providing a final project performance report.
f. Complying with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor regulations:
i. 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).
ii. 2 CFR parts 417 and 180 (Government-wide Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension).
g. Signing Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants” (for corporate applicants only).
h. Complying with Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
i. Accountability and Compliance with Civil Rights Laws.
1901.201 Purpose. This subpart contains policies and procedures for implementing the regulations of the Department of Agriculture issued pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Executive Order 13166, Executive Order 11246, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, as they relate to the Rural Development (Rural Development). Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit preference to American Indians on Indian Reservations.
The policies contained in subpart E of part 1901 apply to recipients. Recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to comply with the applicable Federal, State and local laws. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Recipients are required to adhere to specific outreach activities. These outreach activities include, contacting community organizations and leaders that include minority leaders, advertising in local newspapers and other media throughout the entire service area, and including the nondiscrimination slogan, “This is an Equal Opportunity Program. Discrimination is prohibited by Federal Law, “in methods that may include, but not be limited to, advertisements, public broadcasts, and printed materials, such as, brochures and pamphlets. All recipients must submit and have on file a valid Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement,” and RUS Form 266 or RD Form 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
By signing Form 400-4 or 266, Assurance Agreement recipients affirm that they will operate the program free from discrimination. The recipient will maintain the race and ethnic data on the board members and beneficiaries of the program. The Recipient will provide alternative forms of communication to persons with limited English proficiency. The Agency will conduct Civil Rights Compliance Reviews on recipients to identify the collection of racial and ethnic data on Program beneficiaries. In addition, the Compliance review will ensure that equal access to the Program benefits and activities are provided for persons with disabilities and language barriers.
a. Performance reporting. All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide annual performance activity reports to RUS until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last annual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project in meeting the DLT Grant Program objectives. See 7 CFR 1734.7 for additional information on these reporting requirements.
b. Financial reporting. All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide an annual audit, beginning with the first year in which a portion of the financial assistance is expended. Audits are governed by USDA audit regulations. See 7 CFR 1734.8 and 2 CFR part 200, subpart F for a description of the audit requirements.
c. Recipient and Sub-recipient Reporting. The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding, unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows:
i. First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the recipient to
ii. The total compensation of the recipient's executives (the five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the recipient (if the recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to
iii. The total compensation of the sub-recipient's executives (the five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the sub-recipient (if the sub-recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the sub-award was made.
d. Recordkeeping and Accounting. The agreement will contain provisions related to record keeping and accounting requirements.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and 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, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, familial status, disability, limited English proficiency, or because all or a part of an individual's income is 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 request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
a.
b.
c.
d. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) gives notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC). The NAC addresses policy, research, and technical issues relating to all Census Bureau programs and activities. These activities include the production and dissemination of detailed demographic and economic statistics across all program areas, including the Decennial Census Program. The NAC is scheduled to meet in a plenary session on June 14-15, 2018. Planned topics of discussion include the following items:
Please visit the Census Advisory Committees website for the most current meeting agenda at:
June 14-15, 2018. On Thursday, June 14, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. On Friday, June 15, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Branch Chief for Advisory Committees, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, at
The NAC was established in March 2012 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10). The NAC members are appointed by the Director of the Census Bureau and provide recommendations to the Director on statistical and data collection issues on topics such as hard-to-reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, rural populations, and population segments with limited access to technology. The Committee also advises on data privacy and confidentiality, among other issues.
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on Friday, June 15. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to:
If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, June 11. You may access the online registration from the following link:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon
Due to security protocols and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, 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.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before June 4, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse at
Non-Federal entities (states, local governments, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations) are required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501,
The Single Audit process is a primary method Federal agencies and pass-through entities use to provide oversight for Federal awards and reduce risk of non-compliance and improper payments. This includes following up on audit findings and questioned costs. The proposed changes are to revise some existing data elements and add data elements that would make the reports easier for Federal agencies, pass-through entities, and the public to use.
The proposed changes are to include the following required elements of the reporting package on the data collection form: The text of the federal award audit findings, the text of the corrective action plan, and the notes to the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). The proposed revisions to the Form SF-SAC can be obtained by download from the FAC homepage at
This is a reinstatement, with changes, of Form SF-SAC, OMB control number 0607-0518. Prior to the year 1997, the Census Bureau was responsible for the OMB clearance approval process using OMB control number 0607-0518. In 1997, OMB took over the approval process for the Form SF-SAC under OMB control number 0348-0057 (currently expiring June 30, 2019). The Census Bureau is now resuming responsibility for obtaining OMB clearance under the original OMB control number 0607-0518. The FAC will continue to collect Single Audit reports from prior audit years, going back to audit year 2013, to accommodate late submissions and revisions. Late submissions or revisions from prior years are to use the version of the Form SF-SAC applicable to that audit year. The FAC also plans to allow Non-Federal entities who did not meet the threshold requiring submission of a Single Audit report to voluntarily notify the FAC that they did not meet the reporting threshold. The FAC plans to put this information on their website.
The information will be collected electronically through the FAC's web-based internet Data Entry System (IDES) available at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is 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 (including hours and cost) 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.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection;
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on April 25 and 26, 2018, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Joanna M. Lewis at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Lewis via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 4, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (l0)(d)), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and l0(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Joanna M. Lewis at (202) 482-6440.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Sidenor Aceros Especiales S.L. (Sidenor), an exporter/producer of stainless steel bar (SSB) from Spain, sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR), March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017.
Applicable April 3, 2018.
Carrie Bethea or Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1491 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.
On December 4, 2017, Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from Spain.
The merchandise covered by the order is SSB products and is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, and 7222.30.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we have recalculated Sidenor's weighted-average dumping margin. For further discussion,
We determine that, for the period of March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017, the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Sidenor for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Sidenor will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 25.77 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 3, 2018.
Thomas Martin or Maisha Cryor, 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) 482-3936 or (202) 482-5831, respectively.
On March 7, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of laminated woven sacks (LWS) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), filed in proper form on behalf of the Laminated Woven Sacks Fair Trade Coalition and its individual members Polytex Fibers Corporation and ProAmpac Holdings Inc., (collectively, the petitioners).
On March 12, 16, and 26, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the GOV is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of LWS in Vietnam, and imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing LWS in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C), (E) and (F) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioners are requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on March 7, 2018, the period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are LWS from Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations of LWS from Vietnam.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOV of the receipt of the CVD Petition, and provided them with an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that LWS, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2017, and compared these shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, the CVD Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce, indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting that Commerce initiate.
Because Vietnam is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Vietnam materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and a decline in U.S. shipments, capacity utilization, production, and financial performance.
Based upon our examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Specifically, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 19 alleged programs. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of LWS from Vietnam benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOV. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.
The petitioners named 27 producers/exporters of LWS in Vietnam.
On March 16, 2018, Commerce released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD investigation.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce's website at
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the deadline noted above. We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOV
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of LWS from Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BOPP), polyester (PET), polyethylene (PE), nylon, or any film suitable for printing, or to an exterior ply of paper; printed; displaying, containing, or comprising three or more visible colors (
Subject laminated woven sacks are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 6305.33.0040. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including, but not limited to, sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings, including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective March 27, 2018.
Drew Jackson or Celeste Chen, 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) 482-4406 or (202) 482-0890, respectively.
On March 7, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of laminated woven sacks (LWS) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), filed in proper form on behalf of the Laminated Woven Sacks Fair Trade Coalition and its individual members, Polytex Fibers Corporation and ProAmpac Holdings Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).
On March 12, 16, and 26, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of LWS from Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing LWS in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C), (E) and (F) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioners are requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on March 7, 2018, and Vietnam is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are LWS from Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations of LWS from Vietnam.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Commerce will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of LWS to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant production information accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they believe are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 16, 2018. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 26, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically, using ACCESS as explained above, on the record of the less-than-fair-value investigation.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petition. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that LWS, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2017 and compared these shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; a decline in U.S. shipments, capacity utilization, production, and financial performance; and the magnitude of the alleged dumping margins.
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate the AD investigation of imports of LWS from Vietnam. The sources of data for the petitioners' calculations relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
The petitioners based U.S. price on export price (EP) using the average unit value of publicly available import data.
Commerce considers Vietnam to be an NME country.
The petitioners state that India is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from India is available to value all material inputs.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
The petitioners state that they do not have access to the Vietnamese producers' factors of production and consumption rates for those FOPs. Therefore, the petitioners relied on their own experience and other information reasonably available.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of LWS from Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for LWS from Vietnam range from 101.73 percent to 292.61 percent.
Based upon our examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating this AD investigation to determine whether imports of LWS from Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.
The petitioners named 27 producers/exporters of LWS from Vietnam.
Producers/exporters of LWS from Vietnam that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's website. The Q&V questionnaire response must be submitted by the relevant Vietnamese exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on April 10, 2018. All Q&V questionnaire responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the government of Vietnam
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of LWS from Vietnam, are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BOPP), polyester (PET), polyethylene (PE), nylon, or any film suitable for printing, or to an exterior ply of paper; printed; displaying, containing, or comprising three or more visible colors (
Subject laminated woven sacks are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 6305.33.0040. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including, but not limited to, sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings, including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective April 3, 2018.
Tom Bellhouse at (202) 482-2057 or Deborah Scott at (202) 482-2657, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On November 28, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated an antidumping duty investigation concerning imports of common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the People's Republic of China.
On March 19, 2018, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group (the Domestic Industry), made a request for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation to provide Commerce with sufficient time to review submissions and request supplemental information, in order to arrive at the most accurate results possible.
Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2), Commerce has the authority to extend the deadline for the preliminary determination in this investigation. Because Commerce has the support of cooperating parties and has deemed the investigation to be extraordinarily complicated, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days, until June 11, 2018, in accordance with section
In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.
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) determines that Jungbunzlauer Canada, Inc. (JBL Canada), producer/exporter of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada, did not sell subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017.
Applicable April 3, 2018.
Renato Barreda or George Ayache, 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) 482-0317 or (202) 482-2623, respectively.
On February 6, 2018, Commerce published in the
The merchandise subject to the order is citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 2918.14.0000, 2918.15.1000, 2918.15.5000, and 3824.90.9290. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum,
As no parties submitted comments on the margin calculation methodology used in the
As a result of this review, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by the following company during the POR:
Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).
Commerce intends to issue the appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, in accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a).
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of these final results for all shipments of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for merchandise produced or exported by JBL Canada will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 23.21 percent, the all-others rate established in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We intend to issue and publish these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Volunteers Action Team via webinar.
The Volunteers Team meeting will be held on Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 1 p.m. The meeting is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. Additional Action Team webinar and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
The meeting will be held via webinar and is open to members of the public. Webinar registration is required and a registration link will be posted to the Citizen Science program page of the Council's website at
Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Council created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of
Each Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting. Items to be addressed during these meetings:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 25, to Friday, April 27, 2018, and will start at 8:30 a.m. and continue until business is concluded on each day.
The meeting will be held at the Glenn M. Anderson Federal Building, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, on the Third Floor in Room 3400. Visitors need to present photo ID and pass through electronic security equipment to enter the building. There is no visitor parking available in the building for the general public. Metered street parking is nearby. Commercial parking lots are within walking distance to the building. For meeting location information, please contact Mr. Lyle Enriquez at
Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
The purpose of the HMSMT meeting is to prepare an analysis of the range of alternatives for authorizing a fishery using deep-set buoy gear adopted by the Pacific Council in September 2017 and March 2018. The HMSMT will provide an update on the analysis at the Pacific Council's June 2018 meeting. The HMSMT may also discuss updates to the HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation document and HMS-related matters scheduled on future Council agendas including reporting relative to bycatch performance metrics for the large mesh drift gillnet (DGN) fishery, exempted fishing permit applications, observer coverage in the DGN fishery, and citizenship requirements for the general HMS permit.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, (503) 820-2411, at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Final waiver and extension of the project period.
For projects funded under the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), the Secretary: (1) Waives the requirements of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations that generally prohibit project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds; and (2) extends the project period for the current OSP grantee for up to an additional 24 months under the existing program authority. This waiver and extension will enable the Department to provide continuation awards to the current OSP grantee through FY 2019 under the existing program authority.
As of May 3, 2018, the waiver and extension of the project period are finalized.
Anna Hinton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 4W229, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-1816. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On January 24, 2018, the Department published a notice in the
That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the waiver and extension of the project period. This notice makes the waiver and extension of the project period final. Any activities carried out during the period of an OSP continuation award will have to be consistent with, or a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the FY 2015 OSP competition and the ensuing cooperative agreement. The requirements applicable to continuation awards for this competition set forth in the 2015 notice inviting applications (80 FR 9448) and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 will apply to any continuation awards sought by the current OSP grantee. The Department will not announce a new competition or make new awards in FY 2018 and FY 2019.
There are no substantive differences between the proposed waiver and extension and the final waiver and extension.
An anonymous commenter stated that the administration of the OSP should remain the responsibility of the current grantee until there is a justifiable reason to identify another. The commenter further stated that selection of a new grantee should always coincide with the reauthorization of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act.
One commenter, a coalition of more than 50 organizations devoted to the support of public schools, opposed the proposed waiver and extension. The commenter cited concerns with the current and prior grantees' administration of the program; and challenged the Department's assumptions regarding a qualified and interested applicant pool to compete for the grant. For these reasons, the commenter states that the Department should hold a competition in FY 2018.
The Secretary certifies that the final waiver and extension and the activities required to support additional months of funding will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entity that will be affected by this final waiver and extension is the FY 2015 grantee, the non-profit organization currently receiving Federal funds under the OSP. This final waiver and extension will not have a significant economic impact on this entity because the activities required to support the additional year(s) of funding will not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. The waiver will impose minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds,
This notice of final waiver and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 4, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Eagle's View Partners, Ltd.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Camilla Solar Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Prairie Queen Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Meadow Lake Wind Farm VI LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Turtle Creek Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on February 2, 2018 and the Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference issued on February 27, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 3-4, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET). The conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners may attend and participate. The purpose of this conference is to discuss issues related to the coordination of affected systems that have been raised in the complaint filed by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. in Docket No. EL18-26-000 and in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Generator Interconnection NOPR) on the interconnection process in Docket No. RM17-8-000. The first day of the conference will focus on questions specific to issues raised in the complaint filed in Docket No. EL18-26-000, while the second day of the conference will focus on the broader affected systems issues raised in the Generator Interconnection NOPR in Docket No. RM17-8-000.
An agenda with a list of selected speakers is attached and will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at
While this conference is not for the purpose of discussing other specific cases, we note that the discussions at the conference may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings that are either pending or within their rehearing period:
Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER18-421-000;
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER18-636-000;
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-1346-003;
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-1817-004;
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. EL18-17-000;
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER17-156-002; and
TranSource, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. EL15-79-001.
The conference will be open for the public to attend. Information on the technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
This event will be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with internet access can navigate to the “FERC Calendar” at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petitions for objection to Clean Air Act title V operating permits.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated February 26, 2018, denying Petitions dated October 25, 2016 and January 25, 2017 from the Ho-Chunk Nation and the Sierra Club John Muir Chapter. The first Petition requested that EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to Superior Silica Sands for its industrial sand mining and processing facility in Barron County, Wisconsin. The second Petition also requested that EPA object to a CAA title V operating permit issued by the WDNR to Wisconsin Proppants for its industrial sand mine and processing facility in Jackson County, Wisconsin.
EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the
Genevieve Damico, EPA Region 5, (312) 353-4761,
The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period, if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
EPA received the Petitions from Ho-Chunk Nation and the Sierra Club John Muir Chapter dated October 25, 2016 and January 25, 2017, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. 603110860-P01, issued by the WDNR to Superior Silica Sands for its industrial sand mining and processing facility in Barron County, Wisconsin, and operating permit no. 627026620-P01, issued by the WDNR to Wisconsin Proppants for it industrial sand mine and processing facility in Jackson County, Wisconsin. The Petitions alleged that (1) the permits are deficient because they do not include emissions estimates for all sources of particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), (2) the permits are deficient because PM 2.5 limits that were based on previous modeling were removed and WDNR has not made a defensible finding that the proposed permits will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard, and (3) (raised in
On February 26, 2018, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying the Petitions. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than June 4, 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of California's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA approves the authorized program revision for the State of California's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program as of May 3, 2018, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On February 14, 2018, the California State Water Resources Control Board (CA SWRCB) submitted an application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed CA SWRCB's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve California's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the
CA SWRCB was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of California's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;
(3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing 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
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 May 1, 2018.
1.
In connection with this proposal, Henderson's parent company, Trust Number 3 under the Will of Charles Henderson, Troy, Alabama, will indirectly acquire First Brundidge Bancshares, Inc. and First National Bank of Brundidge both of Brundidge, Alabama.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for the FTC's enforcement of the information collection requirements in four consumer financial regulations enforced by the Commission. Those clearances expire on July 31, 2018.
Comments must be filed by June 4, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Carole Reynolds or Stephanie Rosenthal, Attorneys, Division of Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3224.
The four regulations covered by this notice are:
(1) Regulations promulgated under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691
(2) Regulations promulgated under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693
(3) Regulations promulgated under the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1667
(4) Regulations promulgated under the Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601
The FTC enforces these statutes as to all businesses engaged in conduct these laws cover unless these businesses (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions) are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency.
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), almost all rulemaking authority for the ECOA, EFTA, CLA, and TILA transferred from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on July 21, 2011 (“transfer date”). To implement this transferred authority, the CFPB published interim final rules for new regulations in 12 CFR part 1002 (Regulation B), 12 CFR part 1005 (Regulation E), 12 CFR part 1013 (Regulation M), and 12 CFR 1026 (Regulation Z) for those entities under its rulemaking jurisdiction, which were issued as final rules thereafter.
As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC and the CFPB generally share the authority to enforce Regulations B, E, M, and Z for entities for which the FTC had enforcement authority before the Act, except for certain motor vehicle dealers.
Through the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC generally has sole authority to enforce Regulations B, E, M, and Z regarding certain motor vehicle dealers predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both, that, among other things, assign their contracts to unaffiliated third parties.
The regulations impose certain recordkeeping and disclosure requirements associated with providing credit or with other financial transactions. Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
All four of these regulations require covered entities to keep certain records, but FTC staff believes these records are kept in the normal course of business even absent the particular recordkeeping requirements.
The regulations also require covered entities to make disclosures to third-parties. Related compliance involves set-up/monitoring and transaction-specific costs. “Set-up” burden, incurred only by covered new entrants, includes their identifying the applicable required disclosures, determining how best to comply, and designing and developing compliance systems and procedures. “Monitoring” burden, incurred by all covered entities, includes their time and costs to review changes to regulatory requirements, make necessary revisions to compliance systems and procedures, and to monitor the ongoing operation of systems and procedures to ensure continued compliance. “Transaction-related” burden refers to the time and cost associated with providing the various required disclosures in individual transactions, thus, generally, of much lesser magnitude than “monitoring” (or “setup”) burden. The FTC's estimates of transaction time and volume are intended as averages. The population of affected motor vehicle dealers is one component of a much larger universe of such entities.
The required disclosures do not impose PRA burden on some covered entities because they make those disclosures in their normal course of activities. For other covered entities that do not, their compliance burden will vary widely depending on the extent to which they have developed effective computer-based or electronic systems and procedures to communicate and document required disclosures.
Calculating the burden associated with the four regulations' disclosure requirements is very difficult because of the highly diverse group of affected entities. The “respondents” included in the following burden calculations consist of, among others, credit and lease advertisers, creditors, owners (such as purchasers and assignees) of credit obligations, financial institutions, service providers, certain government agencies and others involved in delivering electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) of government benefits, and lessors.
The cost estimates that follow relate solely to labor costs, and they include the time necessary to train employees how to comply with the regulations. Staff calculated labor costs by multiplying appropriate hourly wages by the burden hours described above. The hourly wages used were $56 for managerial oversight, $42 for skilled technical services, and $17 for clerical work. These figures are averages drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
The applicable PRA requirements impose minimal capital or other non-labor costs. Affected entities generally already have the necessary equipment for other business purposes. Similarly, FTC staff estimates that compliance with these rules entails minimal printing and copying costs beyond that associated with documenting financial transactions in the normal course of business.
The following discussion and tables present FTC estimates under the PRA of recordkeeping and disclosure average
FTC enforcement initiatives are based on diverse statutory and regulatory requirements. Some actions are brought in partnership with other federal and state agencies and encompass matters enforced by those agencies, not solely issues related to Regulations M and Z. Further, even where Regulations M and Z matters also are involved in FTC actions, or are in the broader initiative or enforcement sweep of automobile actions, the actions frequently include charges of unfair and/or deceptive practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), and/or may involve warranty violations under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301-2312, and other issues not pertinent to this PRA submission.
The ECOA prohibits discrimination in the extension of credit. Regulation B implements the ECOA, establishing disclosure requirements to assist customers in understanding their rights under the ECOA and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies in enforcement. Regulation B applies to retailers, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, finance companies, and others.
FTC staff estimates that Regulation B's general recordkeeping requirements affect 530,762 credit firms subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of 1.25 hours per firm for a total of 663,453 hours.
Regulation B requires that creditors (
The EFTA requires that covered entities provide consumers with accurate disclosure of the costs, terms, and rights relating to EFT and certain other services. Regulation E implements the EFTA, establishing disclosure and other requirements to aid consumers and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies with enforcement. It applies to financial institutions, retailers, gift card issuers and others that provide gift cards, service providers, various federal and state agencies offering EFTs, prepaid account entities, etc. Staff estimates that Regulation E's recordkeeping requirements affect 251,053 firms offering EFT and certain other services to consumers and that are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of one hour per firm, for a total of 251,053 hours. This represents a decrease from prior figures, reflecting a decrease in entities under FTC jurisdiction engaged in applicable activities.
The CLA requires that covered entities provide consumers with accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of leases. Regulation M implements the CLA, establishing disclosure requirements to help consumers comparison shop and understand the terms of leases and recordkeeping requirements. It applies to vehicle lessors (such as auto dealers, independent leasing companies, and manufacturers' captive finance companies), computer lessors (such as computer dealers and other retailers), furniture lessors, various electronic commerce lessors, diverse types of lease advertisers, and others.
Staff estimates that Regulation M's recordkeeping requirements affect approximately 30,203 firms within the FTC's jurisdiction leasing products to consumers at an average annual burden of one hour per firm, for a total of 30,203 hours.
The TILA was enacted to foster comparison credit shopping and informed credit decision making by requiring creditors and others to provide accurate disclosures regarding the costs and terms of credit to consumers. Regulation Z implements the TILA, establishing disclosure requirements to assist consumers and recordkeeping requirements to assist agencies with enforcement. These requirements pertain to open-end and closed-end credit and apply to various types of entities, including mortgage companies; finance companies; auto dealerships; private education loan companies; merchants who extend credit for goods or services; credit advertisers; acquirers of mortgages; and others. Additional requirements also exist in the mortgage area, including for high cost mortgages, higher-priced mortgage loans,
FTC staff estimates that Regulation Z's recordkeeping requirements affect approximately 430,762 entities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of 1.25 hours per entity with .25 additional hours per entity for 3,650 entities (ability to pay), and 5 additional hours per entity for 4,500 entities (loan originators).
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 4, 2018. Write “Regs BEMZ, PRA Comments, P084812” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public FTC website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Regs BEMZ, PRA Comments, P084812” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website to read this Notice. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before June 4, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations on national maritime security matters to the Secretary of Homeland Security via
Completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before May 3, 2018.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National Maritime Security 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. Ryan Owens, Commandant (CG-FAC-1), the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593, Stop 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501,
The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee is a Federal Advisory Committee, which operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee advises, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary via the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters relating to national maritime security.
The full Committee normally meets at least two times per fiscal year. Working group meetings and teleconferences are held more frequently, as needed. The Committee may also meet for extraordinary purposes.
Each National Maritime Security Advisory Committee member serves a term of office up to 3 years. Members may serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. All members serve without compensation from the Federal Government; however, they may receive travel reimbursement and per diem.
We will consider applications for 16 representative positions listed below that will become vacant on June 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018.
Applicants with experience in the following sectors of the marine transportation industry with at least five years of practical experience in their field are encouraged to apply:
• At least four individuals who represents the interests of the port authorities. Two become vacant on June 1, 2018 and two become vacant on December 31, 2018;
• at least three individuals who represents the interests of the vessel owners or operators. One becomes vacant on June 1, 2018 and two become vacant on December 31, 2018;
• at least two individuals who represents the interests of the facilities owners/operators. Both become vacant on December 31, 2018;
• at least two individuals who represents the interests of the terminal owners/operators. Both become vacant on December 31, 2018;
• at least two individuals who represents the interests of the maritime labor organizations. One becomes vacant on June 1, 2018 and one becomes vacant on December 31, 2018;
• at least two individuals who represents the interests of the maritime industry. One becomes vacant on June 1, 2018 and one becomes vacant on December 31, 2018;
• at least one individual who represents the academic community. One becomes vacant on December 31, 2018.
Due to the nature of National Maritime Security Advisory Committee business, National Maritime Security Advisory Committee members are required to apply for, obtain, and maintain a government national security clearance at the Secret level. The U.S. Coast Guard will sponsor and assist candidates with this process.
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory Committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist 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 of 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 any 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 complete application package to Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee via one of the transmittal methods in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with foreign endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive comments by May 3, 2018.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# at the beginning of your comment. We will post all comments on
Joyce Russell, 703-358-2280.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible, confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
If you submit a comment via
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Grevy's zebra (
The applicant requests a renewal/amendment to a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: African penguin (
In the
If you wish to make comments, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), received an application from UCP, LLC (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The application includes a draft habitat conservation plan (HCP), which describes the actions the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking of the threatened Olympia subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher and the threatened Oregon spotted frog that may occur incidental to the otherwise lawful construction of 327 single and multi-family residences at a development site known as The Preserve located in Thurston County, Washington. We also announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) addressing the draft HCP and proposed permit. We invite the public to review and comment on the permit application, including the draft HCP and the draft EA.
To ensure consideration, please submit written comments by May 3, 2018.
You may view or download copies of the draft HCP and draft EA and obtain additional information on the internet at
•
•
•
Tim Romanski, Conservation Planning and Hydropower Branch Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
The Service received an application from UCP, LLC for an ITP pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The application requests a 15-year permit that would authorize “take” of two covered species—the threatened Olympia subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher (
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm,” as defined in our regulations, includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in our regulations as to carry out actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions that authorize the Service to issue permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species caused by otherwise lawful activities, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are found in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
In this case, the applicant is requesting a 15-year permit that would authorize take of the Olympia pocket gopher and the Oregon spotted frog incidental to otherwise lawful activities on parcels they own in Thurston County, Washington. The application includes a draft HCP that describes the actions the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the two covered species.
The Service proposes to issue the requested 15-year permit based on the applicant's commitment to implement the draft HCP, if permit issuance criteria are met. Covered activities include measures related to construction, land development, and the conservation of the two covered species. The area covered under the draft HCP consists of a project development site known as The Preserve, totaling approximately 127 acres and an approximately 64-acre conservation site. Take of the Olympia pocket gopher would occur primarily on fragmented habitat remaining on a previously disturbed project development site, and will be offset by permanent management of a single block of occupied habitat for the covered species at the conservation site. The Oregon spotted frog is not known from the project development site, but is known to occur on the conservation site. Any take of the Oregon spotted frog would be incidental to conservation site management activities and is offset by permanently conserving and managing on-site habitat for the benefit of the species. Financial assurances have been provided by the applicant to ensure ongoing perpetual management of the conservation site.
The proposed issuance of a permit is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Alternatives analyzed in the EA include a no-action alternative, the proposed alternative, and an on-site mitigation alternative. Under the no-action alternative, take of listed species would be avoided by limiting construction and development on the project development site to areas where impacts to listed species could be avoided. Because no impacts to listed species are expected under this alternative, no HCP would be needed and no permit would be issued. The proposed alternative is implementation of the proposed HCP and issuance of the requested 15-year permit, as described above. The on-site mitigation alternative would provide for incidental take of the Olympia pocket gopher associated with a level of development that could be fully offset by managing currently occupied habitat on the project site.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All comments received from organizations, businesses, or individuals representing organizations or businesses are available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the EA, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
After public review and completion of the EA, we will determine whether the proposed action warrants a finding of no significant impact or whether an environmental impact statement should be prepared. We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and any comments received, to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the requested section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA on anticipated ITP actions. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will issue an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to the applicant for the take of the covered species, incidental to otherwise lawful covered activities.
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued permits to conduct activities with endangered and threatened species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities involving listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity.
Information about the applications for the permits listed in this notice is available online at
Joyce Russell, 703-358-2023.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species in response to permit applications that we received under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
After considering the information submitted with each permit application and the public comments received, we issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth in each permit. For each application for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
The permittees' original permit application materials, along with public comments we received during public comment periods for the applications, are available for review. To locate the application materials and received comments, go to
We issue this notice under the authority of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, advise the public that we intend to prepare a draft environmental assessment (EA), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an enhancement of survival permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Morenci, Inc., and the Morenci Water and Electric Company (FMMI/MWE) (collectively referred to as the applicant) for conservation of federally-listed fish species. The applicant proposes to draft a safe harbor agreement. Via this notice, we also open a public scoping period.
Written suggestions or comments on alternatives and issues to be addressed in the Service's draft environmental analysis must be received by close of business on or before May 3, 2018.
To request further information or submit written comments, use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comment is in reference to the FMMI/MWE NEPA scoping:
• Email:
• U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 9828 N 31st Avenue, Suite C3, Phoenix, Arizona 85051;
• Fax: 602-242-2513; or
• Phone: 602-242-0210.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the public that we intend to prepare a draft EA, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1533). The term “harm” is defined in the regulations as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, we may, under specified circumstances, issue permits that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. EOS Permits issued to applicants in association with approved SHAs authorize incidental take of the covered species from implementation of the conservation activities and ongoing covered activities above the baseline condition. Baseline condition for a species could be described as the existing number of individuals, acres of habitat, or length of occupied stream present in the permit area prior to implementation of the SHA.
Application requirements and issuance criteria for EOS permits for SHAs are found in the Code of Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(c)(2)(ii) and 17.32(c)(2)(ii), respectively. See also the joint policy on SHAs, which the Service and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service published in the
The purpose of issuing the proposed EOS Permit is to authorize take associated with the applicant's proposed activities while conserving covered species and their habitats. We expect that the applicant will request EOS Permit coverage for a period of 50 years.
The proposed activities would include ongoing land and water management activities associated with water-related improvements, including a diversion dam and appurtenant pumping facilities and pipelines, groundwater pumping stations and water transmission pipelines, access roads, power lines, and related infrastructure. During the term of the SHA, the permittee anticipates improving, replacing, repairing, reconstructing, and maintaining these facilities and related infrastructure on land adjacent to Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. We have worked with the applicant to design conservation activities expected to have a net conservation benefit to the spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila
(1) Allocation of $4,000,000 over the next 10 years to complete the design and construction of a fish barrier on Eagle Creek to protect and enhance aquatic habitat for the covered species. Design of the barrier is almost complete, and the location for the barrier has been selected by the applicant. The fish barrier would prevent nonnative aquatic species from moving upstream into the upper portion of the creek, protecting the covered species and their habitat. Loach minnow and Gila chub are primarily found above the proposed barrier location, and the best remaining habitat for the three species is also above the proposed barrier location.
(2) Development and implementation of a 3-year monitoring program to detect the presence of other types of nonnative invasive species (
(3) Annual monitoring along Eagle Creek and the lower reach of the San Francisco River to gather data for use in informing future conservation and management activities and assisting in the recovery of the Covered Species.
These conservation activities are expected to:
(1) Protect existing upper Eagle Creek populations of spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila chub, as well as other native fish species, against future upstream incursion of nonnative aquatic organisms from the Gila River and lower Eagle Creek. Spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila chub all occur in approximately 10 to 15 percent of their historical ranges, having been extirpated from other areas due to habitat alteration, competition with or predation by nonnative species, and other factors. The Gila River and lower Eagle Creek are currently occupied by a variety of nonnative fish species known to be detrimental to native fishes, including flathead catfish, channel catfish, smallmouth bass, red shiner, and green sunfish.
(2) Provide data that can be used to inform future management actions to remove nonnative species (
(3) Provide a cooperative approach that allows for continuation of mining operations and native fish conservation.
Ongoing land and water management activities, as well as conservation activities under the SHA, would occur along portions of Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River in Graham and Greenlee Counties, Arizona, on lands currently owned by the applicant.
The applicant may apply for an EOS Permit to cover the spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila chub. The permit area may include an additional three species federally listed as threatened: The western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (
The proposed action presented in the draft EA would be compared to the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative represents the estimated future conditions without the proposed Federal action.
In the No-Action Alternative, the applicant would not request, and we would not issue, an EOS Permit for the ongoing use and management of land and water along Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. Therefore, ongoing use and management of land and water on the applicant's property, should incidental take occur, would require the applicant to seek coverage for incidental take in some other manner. Additionally, the non-native fish barrier would not be built, and monitoring would not occur.
The proposed action would be the issuance of an EOS Permit for the covered species for the conservation and covered activities within the plan area, when and if the applicant determines to move forward with an SHA and development of a nonnative fish barrier. The draft SHA, which must be consistent with the final SHA policy (64 FR 32717), would be developed in coordination with the Service and implemented by the applicant.
The proposed alternative would need to provide a net conservation benefit for the listed species covered by the SHA, and would need to provide long-term protection of native fish habitat in portions of upper Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. Actions covered under the requested EOS Permit may include possible take of the species associated with proposed land and water management activities above the baseline condition for the species, as well as construction of the nonnative fish barrier.
Possible alternatives include mechanical or chemical stream renovation with barrier construction, or alternative sites for barrier construction. We are requesting information regarding other reasonable alternatives during this scoping period.
We will use and coordinate the NEPA process to fulfill our obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act [(Pub. L. 89-665, as amended by Pub. L. 96-515, and as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) and 800.8c)]. A cultural resource inventory has already been completed for the project; we will address the findings of that report and continue coordinating with tribes and the State Historic Preservation Office during project development.
The Service will draft an EA to analyze the proposed action, as well as other alternatives, and the associated impacts of each alternative on the human environment and each species covered for the range of alternatives to be addressed. The draft EA is expected to provide biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, as well as the effects of the alternatives on other resources, such as vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology, and soils, air quality, water resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation, water use, local economy, and environmental justice, as appropriate for the proposed action.
Written comments received will become part of the public record associated with this action. 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. 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 publish this notice in compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6, and 1508.22), and section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for public comment.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the technical/agency draft recovery plan for the endangered Cumberland darter, a fish. The draft recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria that will guide the process of recovery under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request review and comment on this draft recovery plan from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public.
In order to be considered, comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before June 4, 2018.
1. You may submit written comments and materials to us at the Kentucky Field Office address;
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Kentucky Field Office, at the above address, or fax them to 502-695-1024; or
3. You may send comments by email to
For additional information about submitting comments, see the Request for Public Comments section.
Michael Floyd (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the technical/agency draft recovery plan for the endangered Cumberland darter, a fish. The draft recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria that would be used to delist this fish under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of species, establish criteria for delisting, and estimate time and cost for implementing recovery measures. Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies will take these comments into consideration in the course of implementing approved recovery plans.
We listed the Cumberland darter (
Cumberland darters are known from streams ranging in size from small, second order tributaries to larger, fourth order streams such as Jellico Creek, Whitley County, Kentucky. Little is known of the species' life history or microhabitat suitability, but it is often encountered in pools or shallow runs of low-to-moderate-gradient sections of streams with sand, silt, or sand-covered bedrock substrates. Most of these habitats contain isolated boulders and large cobble that the species likely uses as cover.
We designated critical habitat for the Cumberland darter on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63604). A total of 54 river miles (86 rkm) were designated, including 13 streams in McCreary and Whitley Counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and Scott Counties, Tennessee.
The majority of streams within the upper Cumberland River basin have been modified from their historical condition due to a number of anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, logging, residential development, road construction, and surface coal mining. As a result of these activities and associated stressors (
The primary goal of this recovery plan is to recover Cumberland darter populations to the point that listing under the Act is no longer necessary. To achieve these goals, it is necessary to produce self-sustaining, viable populations that possess healthy, long-term demographic and genetic trends (
For this Recovery Plan, we identify nine management units for the Cumberland Darter (refer to the associated Recovery Implementation Strategy, Figure 1). Based on the species' current distribution (refer to the associated Species Biological Report, Figures 1 and 2) and our knowledge of the species' movement patterns, we consider each management unit to
The management units are as follows:
(1) Management Units 1-9 or Management Units 1-7, 9, and one additional stream within the species' historical range (
(2) Instream habitat quality (substrate, flows, water quality) in these management units is sufficient, as defined by recovery tasks 3.1 and 3.2, to meet the species' life history requirements; and
(3) A viable population (as defined in the recovery plan) must occur within each of these management units.
We request written comments on the draft recovery plan. We will consider all comments we receive by the date specified in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533 (f).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Coeur d'Alene District RAC will meet Thursday, April 19, 2018. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and end no later than 4 p.m. The public comment period will take place from 2 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
The Coeur d'Alene District RAC will meet at the BLM Coeur d'Alene District Office, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815.
Suzanne Endsley, RAC Coordinator, Coeur d'Alene District, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815; telephone: 208-769-5004; email:
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. The meeting agenda will include updates from the Cottonwood and Coeur d'Alene Field Offices regarding recreation, forestry and fuels projects. Idaho Panhandle National Forest recreation managers will also present recommendations regarding potential new recreation fees and/or increased fee rates to the Recreation RAC. Additional agenda topics or changes to the agenda will be announced in local press releases. More information is available at:
RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. 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.
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Region-Wide Lease Sale 251.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for the proposed Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Region-wide Lease Sale 251 (GOM Region-wide Sale 251). This Notice is published pursuant to BOEM's regulations. With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, provides Governors of affected states the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS sets forth the proposed size, timing, and location of the sale, including lease stipulations, terms and conditions, minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates.
Governors of affected states may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed GOM Region-wide Sale 251 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the
The Proposed NOS for GOM Region-wide Sale 251 and Proposed NOS Package containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394; telephone: (504) 736-2519. The Proposed NOS and Proposed NOS Package also are available for downloading or viewing on BOEM's website at
Dr. Andrew Krueger, Acting Chief, Leasing Management and Policy Division, 703-787-1554,
43 U.S.C. 1345 and 30 CFR 556.304(c).
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-603-605 and 731-TA-1413-1415 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of glycine from China, India, Japan, and Thailand, provided for in subheading 2922.49.43 and 2922.49.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value from India, Japan, and Thailand, and alleged to be subsidized by the governments of China, India, and Thailand. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by May 14, 2018. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by May 21, 2018.
March 28, 2018.
Abu B. Kanu ((202) 205-2597), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3302) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Bracco Diagnostics Inc. on March 27, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain strontium-rubidium radioisotope infusion systems, and components thereof including generators. The complaint names as respondents: Jubliant DraxImage Inc. of Canada; Jubilant Pharma Limited of Singapore; and Jubilant Life Sciences of India. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3303”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-602 and 731-TA-1412 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of steel wheels from China, provided for in subheadings 8708.70.45, 8708.70.60, and 8716.90.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by May 11, 2018. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by May 18, 2018.
March 27, 2018.
Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), DOJ.
Meeting notice.
The purpose of this notice is to announce the meeting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB). The CJIS APB is a federal advisory committee established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This meeting announcement is being published as required by Section 10 of the FACA.
The APB will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., on June 6-7, 2018.
The meeting will take place at Sheraton Greensboro Hotel/Joseph S. Koury Convention Center, Greensboro, NC 27407; telephone 336-292-9161.
Inquiries may be addressed to Ms. Kathleen Oldaker; Management and Program Analyst; CJIS Training and Advisory Process Unit, Resources Management Section; FBI CJIS Division, Module C2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-0149; telephone 304-625-5931.
The FBI CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy issues and appropriate technical and operational issues related to the programs administered by the FBI's CJIS Division, and thereafter, making appropriate recommendations to the FBI Director. The programs administered by the CJIS Division are the Next Generation Identification, Interstate Identification Index, Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal, National Crime Information Center, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, National Incident-Based Reporting System, National Data Exchange, and Uniform Crime Reporting.
This meeting is open to the public. All attendees will be required to check-in at the meeting registration desk. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Any member of the public may file a written statement with the Board. Written comments shall be focused on the APB's current issues under discussion and may not be repetitive of previously submitted written statements. Written comments should be provided to Mr. Nicky J. Megna, Acting DFO, at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting so that the comments may be made available to the APB for their consideration prior to the meeting.
Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. Megna at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
On March 23, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims set forth in the complaint against Magnolia Valley Plantation, LLC, Magnolia Valley, LLC, and Magnolia Hills, LLC (“Defendants”) for violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) in connection with (1) Defendants' alleged failure to comply with applicable General Permits issued by the State of Georgia pursuant to CWA Section 402, 42 U.S.C. 1342, and for Defendants' alleged discharge of pollutants in storm water from a construction site comprised of the Magnolia Valley Plantation and Magnolia Hills (f/k/a Magnolia Valley) developments (together, the “Site”) in Evans, Columbia County, Georgia, and (2) Defendants' alleged violations of CWA Section 301, 42 U.S.C. 1311, for the alleged discharge of pollutants from the Site into waters of the United States without permits issued pursuant to CWA Section 404, 42 U.S.C. 1344.
Under the Consent Decree, Defendants, with signatory Aaron W. Sullivan, have agreed to pay a civil penalty of $45,000 and pay $60,000 to purchase wetlands credits. Defendants also have agreed to implement injunctive relief, including (1) for the Site: Ensuring that best management practices (“BMPs”) are implemented and maintained, BMP failures are reported and corrected, and (2) for all future sites: Ensuring that BMPs are implemented and maintained, BMP failures are reported and corrected, and both internal and third-party oversight and reporting are implemented.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $19.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in USPN 9,483,674, entitled “RFID Torque-Sensing Tag System for Fasteners”, MSC-25626-1, to Solon Manufacturing, Inc., having its principal place of business in Chardon, Ohio.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections, including evidence and argument no later than April 18, 2018 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than April 18, 2018 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, MS AL, NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 770585. Phone (281) 483-4871. Facsimile (281) 483-6936.
Mr. Walter Ugalde, Technology Transfer and Commercialization Office/XT1, Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, (281) 483-8615.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in a U.S. Patent Application corresponding to NASA Case Number, ARC-17266-1, entitled “Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Based Fabrication of Printable Electronics and Functional Coatings” to Space Foundry, Inc., having its principal place of business at 1035 Aster Avenue, Unit 1120, Sunnyvale, CA 94086.
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections, including evidence and argument no later than April 18, 2018 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later April 18, 2018 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000. (650) 604-5104; Fax (650) 604-2767.
Robert M. Padilla, Chief Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000. (650) 604-5104; Fax (650) 604-2767.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment will hold a meeting on April 4, 2018 at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons on the quantification guidance for main control room abandonment scenarios in fire probabilistic risk assessments. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christiana Lui (Telephone 301-415-2492 or Email
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC website at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 301-415-6702) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Weeks of April 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, May 7, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 16, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 30, 2018.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or you may email
The ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials will hold a meeting on April 4, 2018, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the draft NUREG-2215, “Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities”. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC website at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Theron Brown (Telephone 301-415-6702) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
1. Strategic Issues.
2. Financial Matters.
3. Personnel and Compensation Items.
4. Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Temporary Emergency Committee governance.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC, 20549-1090; Applicants: Aquila Investment Management LLC, 120 West 45th Street, Suite 3600, New York, New York 10036.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6990, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
Summary of the Application:
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short-term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Among others, the Adviser, through a designated committee, would administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management agreements with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On January 26, 2018, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICC proposes to revise its Pricing Policy to amend the methodology used to calculate end-of-day BOWs for its SN instruments. As part of its end-of-day pricing process, ICC calculates a BOW for each clearing-eligible instrument. These BOWs are then used as an input in determining end-of-day levels, which are used for mark-to-market and risk
Under the proposed revisions, ICC would still start its calculation of end-of-day BOWs for SN instruments by calculating a Consensus BOW, but it would change the calculation of the Consensus BOW from being based on intraday quotes taken from trader emails to being computed as (i) a price-based floor, plus (ii) a relative BOW that is multiplied by the average of price-space mid-levels submitted by Clearing Participants through the end-of-day price discovery process.
The relative BOW would be determined by ICC's Risk Management Department in consultation with ICC's Trade Advisory Committee, and would be designed to reflect observed variability in SN instrument levels for the most actively traded instruments. The price-based floor would reflect BOWs established for index products representing baskets of the most distressed SN instruments.
Under the proposed enhancements, ICC would continue to apply certain scaling factors, other than the scrape factor, to the Consensus BOW. Specifically, ICC would apply a tenor scaling factor to the Consensus BOW for each benchmark instrument at the most actively traded coupon.
ICC also proposes to introduce a new component to its Pricing Policy: The “dynamic BOW,” which would be the dispersion of price-space mid-levels submitted as part of its end-of-day price discovery process.
In addition to the proposed changes regarding the computation of the end-of-day BOW for SN instruments, ICC also proposes changes to the Governance section of its Pricing Policy. Specifically, ICC proposes to amend the Governance section to provide that the responsibilities of the ICC Risk Management Department include determining the price-based floors, relative BOWs, and tenor and coupon scaling factors used as inputs into the BOW determination.
Finally, ICC proposes certain clarifying edits. Specifically, ICC proposes to remove references to scrape factors, and to remove the requirement that the Trading Advisory Committee review scrape factors, as the scrape factors, which are applied to the Consensus BOW under ICC's current approach to account for differences between BOWs obtained from intraday quotes taken from trader emails and those achieved in the market, would no longer be applicable under the proposed changes as the Consensus BOW under the proposed amendments would not rely on such intraday quotes.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
Taken as a whole, the Commission believes the proposed changes should enhance ICC's ability to determine the end-of-day BOW for SN instruments. First, the proposed changes should permit ICC to determine BOWs consistently across SN instruments on all reference entities, including those for which only sparse intraday data is available.
Consequently, the Commission believes that the proposed changes will improve ICC's end-of-day pricing process as a whole as additional relevant information will be taken into consideration and a wider range of instruments will be considered in the pricing process. Based on these improvements, the Commission believes that ICC's risk management processes related to the end-of-day pricing process, including the calculation and collection of certain margin requirements, will also be improved, resulting in an improved ability to safeguard the positions that ICC maintains from the default of a Clearing Participant. As a result, the Commission believes that the proposed changes will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the products cleared by ICC, and will enhance ICC's ability to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires, in relevant part, a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions. As noted above, ICC uses the end-of-day BOWs as part of its mark-to-market and risk management purposes, including the computation of certain margin requirements.
The Commission believes that by improving the end-of-day pricing process, as described above, ICC will also improve its ability to calculate margin requirements that use the end-of-day BOWs as an input. Consequently, an improved margin calculation should lead to the collection of margin levels that enhance ICC's ability to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions. As a result, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8) requires, in relevant part, that a registered clearing agency that is not a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, have governance arrangements that promote the effectiveness of the clearing agency's risk management procedures.
Because the output of the end-of-day pricing process is used for mark-to-market and risk management purposes, the Commission believes that improvements to the governance structure of the end-of-day pricing process will have the effect of promoting greater effectiveness of ICC's risk management procedures overall. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the delay for re-introduction of legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders on INET by an additional year.
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 extend the delay for re-introduction of legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders on INET by an additional year. With the recent re-platform of the Exchange's trading system to INET, the Exchange delayed the re-introduction of legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders.
When the Exchange initially delayed legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders, the Exchange noted that it would re-introduce legging for Stock-Option Orders within one year from the date of that filing. The Exchange filed the initial rule change on March 21, 2017, and the additional one year delay would therefore extend the implementation timeline for this functionality to March 21, 2019. The extended delay would provide the Exchange additional time to develop and test this functionality on INET. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert notifying Members when this functionality will be available. Furthermore, in connection with this change, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 722 to remove language about the migration of symbols to INET as this migration has been completed and all symbols listed by the Exchange are currently trading on the INET platform.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed one year delay will impose any significant burden on intra-market competition because legging for Stock-Option Orders will be uniformly delayed for all Members. Similarly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed delay will impose any significant burden on inter-market competition as it does not impact the ability of other markets to offer or not offer competing functionality. The Exchange believes that providing an additional year to develop and test this functionality will be beneficial to members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 5, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (“BOX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt IM-8040-3 to Exchange Rule 8040 to allow Options Participants
Market Makers
As noted above, BOX proposes that if a Directed Order with an Auction Only designation would be sent to the BOX Book for any reason, it will instead be cancelled back to the OFP that submitted the Directed Order.
The Exchange represents that it will provide at least two weeks' notice to Participants via Circular prior to the launch of the proposed change, which the Exchange anticipates will be during the second quarter of 2018.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the Auction Only designation will provide OFPs with greater control over how their Directed Orders are handled by the EP, as OFPs will have certainty that their Directed Orders with the Auction Only designation will either be executed in the PIP or cancelled.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 03/27/2018.
Issued on 03/27/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15460 C and for economic injury is 15461 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia.
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 2.625 percent for the April-June quarter of FY 2018.
Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New York dated 03/27/2018.
Issued on 03/27/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15466 6 and for economic injury is 15467 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are New York, Vermont.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 23, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0212 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones, (202) 267-9677, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
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 revise an information collection. The respondents to this information collection are certificate holders or applicants. The information collected determines compliance with applicant eligibility and ensures that certificated AMTSs meet the minimum requirements for procedures and curriculum set forth by the FAA. This revised filing accounts for the recent implementation of operation specifications, corrects the current enrollment figure cited in 2016, and adds sections that were not previously included in the burden assessment.
Written comments should be submitted by June 4, 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:
• First, due to program changes implemented by FAA Notice N 8900.278, dated November 21, 2014, operations specifications (OpSpecs) were introduced to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 147 AMTSs. OpSpecs must be issued to institutions with part 147 certificates by July 21, 2015. This correction includes the burden added by OpSpecs not addressed in the 2016 information collection.
• Second, the current enrollment figures cited in 2016 were 12,500 students but are now 17,800 students.
• Third, some sections of part 147 were not represented as collecting information and to correct the record, the FAA is including them in this revised report.
The respondents to this information collection are part 147 certificate holders or applicants. Currently, there are 177 FAA certificated AMTSs. The information collected determines compliance with applicant eligibility and ensures that certificated AMTSs meet the minimum requirements of part 147. The information collected is focused on an AMTS' initial curriculum, instructor's qualifications, maintenance of curriculum, facilities, instructional equipment, and change of location, if applicable. Recordkeeping requirements address student attendance, tests, grades, any instruction credited under section 147.31(c), and authenticated transcripts of student's grades when credit was given based on training from a previous school. An AMTS must also keep a current progress chart for each student showing practical projects completed or to be completed in each subject.
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. This collection of information is required of persons who must receive training and testing in order to fly within 60 nautical miles (NM) of the Washington, DC omni-directional range/distance measuring equipment (DCA VOR/DME).
Written comments should be submitted by June 4, 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 for renewal of information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by May 3, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on an information collection pertaining to hazardous materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request from the Office of Management and Budget.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 4, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0020 (Notice No. 2018-08), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed to Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies a new information collect request that PHMSA will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This information collection will be contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA will revise burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules published once the information collection is approved. The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) summary of the information collection activity; (3) description of affected public; (4) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (5) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year approval for this information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
The Department will submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary.
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future.
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Department (if released, the Department must indicate the qualitative nature of the information).
This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of a currently approved collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The
Written comments should be submitted by May 3, 2018.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34-414, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4406, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or EMAIL
The Department of Transportation sets and updates mainline Alaska mail rates based on carrier aircraft operating expense, traffic and operational data. Form 41 cost data, especially fuel costs, terminal expenses, and line haul expenses are used in arriving at rate levels. DOT revises the established rates based on the percentage of unit cost changes in the carriers' operations. These updating procedures have resulted in the carriers receiving rates of compensation that more closely parallel their costs of providing mail service and contribute to the carriers' ability to continue providing service.
As a party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the United States is obligated to provide the International Civil Aviation Organization with financial and statistical data on operations of U.S. air carriers. Over 99 percent of the data filed with ICAO is extracted from the carriers' Form 41 reports.
Fitness determinations are made for both new entrants and established U.S. carriers proposing a substantial change in operations. A portion of these applications consists of an operating plan for the first year (14 CFR part 204) and an associated projection of revenues and expenses. The carrier's operating costs, included in these projections, are compared against the cost data in Form 41 for a carrier or carriers with the same aircraft type and similar operating characteristics. Such a review validates the reasonableness of the carrier's operating plan.
Form 41 reports, particularly balance sheet reports and cash flow statements, play a major role in the identification of vulnerable carriers. Data comparisons are made between current and past periods in order to assess the current financial position of the carrier. Financial trend lines are extended into the future to analyze the continued viability of the carrier. DOT reviews three areas of a carrier's operation: (1) The qualifications of its management team, (2) its disposition to comply with laws and regulations, and (3) its financial posture. DOT must determine whether or not a carrier has sufficient financial resources to conduct its operations without imposing undue risk on the traveling public. Moreover, once a carrier is operating, DOT is required to monitor its continuing fitness.
Senior DOT officials must be kept fully informed as to all current and developing economic issues affecting the airline industry. In preparing financial conditions reports or status reports on a particular airline, financial and traffic data are analyzed. Briefing papers may use the same information.
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 Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Release of Non-Public Information.”
You should submit written comments by June 4, 2018.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection
•
• For assistance in navigating
•
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
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 that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include 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 title 44 requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The information requirements in 12 CFR part 4, subpart C, are as follows:
(1) 12 CFR 4.33: Request for non-public OCC records or testimony.
(2) 12 CFR 4.35(b)(3): Third parties requesting testimony.
(3) 12 CFR 4.37(a)(2): OCC former employee notifying OCC of subpoena.
(4) 12 CFR 4.37(a) and (b): Prohibition on dissemination of released information.
(5) 12 CFR 4.38(a) and (b): Restrictions on dissemination of released information.
(6) 12 CFR 4.39(d): Request for authenticated records or certificate of nonexistence of records.
The OCC uses the information to process requests for non-public OCC information and to determine if sufficient grounds exist for the OCC to release the requested information or provide testimony that would include a discussion of non-public information. This information collection facilitates the processing of requests and expedites the OCC's release of non-public information and testimony to the requester, as appropriate.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards.”
Comments must be received by June 4, 2018.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0326, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include 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 title 44 requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for OMB approval, and become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Subordinated Debt Licensing Requirements.”
Comments must be submitted on or before June 4, 2018.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “1557-0320” in your comment. In general, the OCC will publish them on
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection
• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to
• For assistance in navigating
• Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from 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) to include 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
Burden Estimates:
National banks must receive prior OCC approval in order to prepay subordinated debt that is included in tier 2 capital, and certain banks must receive prior approval to prepay subordinated debt that is not included in tier 2 capital. If the prepayment is in the form of a call option, a national bank must submit the information required
Federal savings associations must receive OCC approval prior to prepaying subordinated debt securities or mandatorily redeemable preferred stock included in tier 2 capital. If the prepayment is in the form of a call option, a federal savings association must submit the information required for general prepayment requests under 12 CFR 5.56(b)(2)(i) and also comply with 12 CFR 5.56(b)(2)(ii)(A), which requires a federal savings association to submit either: (1) A statement explaining why the federal savings association believes that following the proposed prepayment the savings association would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk; or (2) a description of the replacement capital instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20, including the amount of such instrument and the time frame for issuance.
Pursuant to 12 CFR 5.47(d)(3)(ii)(C), a national bank issuing subordinated debt must disclose on the face of the note the OCC's authority under 12 CFR 3.11 to limit distributions, including interest payments on any tier 2 capital instrument if the national bank has full discretion to permanently or temporarily suspend such payments without triggering an event of default.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of six 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
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On February 9, 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. YUSUF, Mohamed Mire Ali (a.k.a. ALI, Mohamed Mire; a.k.a. MIRE, Mohamed; a.k.a. MIRE, Mohamed Ali; a.k.a. MIRE, Muhammad), Puntland, Somalia; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 1975; alt. DOB 1974; alt. DOB 1976; nationality Somalia; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. SAKARYA, Yunus Emre (a.k.a. “AL-ALMANI, Yunus”; a.k.a. “AL-HAIEBI, Younes”), Al Mayadin, Syria; Turkey; DOB 22 Apr 1991; POB Bruhl, Germany; citizen Germany; alt. citizen Turkey; Gender Male; Passport C7480TP630 (Germany); National ID No. L749X688M2 (Germany); alt. National ID No. 523884049 (Germany) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. ABUBAKAR, Abdulpatta Escalon (a.k.a. ABUBAKAR, Abdul Patta Escalon; a.k.a. ESCALON, Abdulpatta Abubakar; a.k.a. “ABU BAKAR, Abdul Patta”), Philippines; Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Daina, Saudi Arabia; DOB 03 Mar 1965; alt. DOB 01 Jan 1965; alt. DOB 11 Jan 1965; POB Tuburan, Basilan Province, Philippines; nationality Philippines; Gender Male; Passport EC6530802 (Philippines) expires 19 Jan 2021; alt. Passport EB2778599 (Philippines); National ID No. 2135314355 (Saudi Arabia); alt. National ID No. 202112421 (Saudi Arabia) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
1. AL-MUTAFAQ COMMERCIAL COMPANY, Boosaaso, Somalia [SDGT] (Linked To: YUSUF, Mohamed Mire Ali).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23,
2. LIIBAAN TRADING (a.k.a. LIBAN TRADING; a.k.a. LIIBAN TRADING), Boosaaso, Somalia [SDGT] (Linked To: YUSUF, Mohamed Mire Ali).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by YUSUF, MOHAMED MIRE ALI, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. PROFESYONELLER ELEKTRONIK (a.k.a. PROFESSIONALS ELECTRONIC TRADE IMPORT AND EXPORT LIMITED COMPANY; a.k.a. PROFESYONELLER ELEKTRONIK TICARET; a.k.a. “PROFESYONELLER ELEKTRONIK TIC ITH VE IHR LTD. STI”), Kecioren, Ankara, Turkey [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT; Linked To: SAKARYA, Yunus Emre).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by SAKARYA, YUNUS EMRE, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Grant of Individual Exemptions.
This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). This notice includes the following: 2018-01, Health Management Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and The Mooresville Retirement Savings Plan, D-11929 and D-11930; 2018-02, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, D-11869; 2018-03, Russell Investment Management, LLC (RIM), Russell Investments Capital, LLC (RiCap), and Their Affiliates, D-11916; 2018-04, Toledo Electrical Joint Apprenticeship & Training Fund, D-11867; 2018-05, EXCO Resources, Inc. 401(k) Plan, D-11821; 2018-06, The Grossberg, Yochelson, Fox & Beyda LLP Profit Sharing Plan, D-11895.
A notice was published in the
The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor.
In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011)
(a) The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan.
On June 28, 2017, the Department of Labor (the Department) published a notice of proposed exemption in the
The proposed exemption invited all interested persons, including current participants and beneficiaries of the Plans, to submit comments or requests for a hearing to the Department by August 28, 2017. During the comment period, the Department received one written comment from CHS that requested certain changes to the operative language and the Summary of Facts and Representations of the proposed exemption. CHS's comments and the Department's responses are discussed below.
1.
CHS requests that the Department revise this condition to read as follows:
“(k) CHS will exercise its option under Section 3.1(d) of the CVR Agreement to retain an Independent Advisor to assist with the calculation of the CVR Payment Amount. The Independent Advisor retained by CHS (and any successor) will be an advisor that: (1) Has the appropriate training, experience, and facilities to perform such calculation; (2) does not directly or indirectly control, is not controlled by and is not under common control with, CHS; (3) does not directly or indirectly receive any compensation or other consideration in connection with any transaction described in this exemption other than for acting as Independent Advisor in the manner described in the CVR Agreement, and provided that the compensation payable is not contingent upon, or in any way affected by, the Independent Advisor's ultimate determination of the CVR Payment Amount; and (4) does not receive annual gross revenue from CHS, during any year of its engagement, that exceeds three percent (3%) of such Independent Advisor's annual gross revenue from all sources (for federal income tax purposes) for its prior tax year. CHS will deliver to the Department copies of the reports and calculations of such Independent Advisor used to determine the CVR Payment Amount.”
The Department concurs with the comment and has revised the condition, accordingly.
2.
CHS represents that since it neither holds nor intends to buy any CVRs, there is no circumstance under which it
After considering this comment, the Department has revised the condition in the manner requested by CHS.
1.
CHS requests that the Department clarify that the reference to “certain reductions” relates to fees and expenses associated with the Existing Litigation.
The Department concurs with CHS's comments and notes the foregoing revision to the first paragraph of Representation 8.
2.
CHS requests that the Department revise this sentence to read as follows: “On a date established by CHS that is not later than thirty (30) days after the date on which Final Resolution of the Existing Litigation occurs, CHS will deliver notice of the CVR Payment Amount to the CVR Trustee, in the form of a Payment Certificate, that will provide notice of the calculation made to determine the CVR Payment Amount.”
After consideration of CHS's comment, the Department notes the foregoing revisions to the second paragraph of Representation 8.
3.
CHS requests that Footnote 12 be revised to reflect the fact that under the CVR Agreement: (a) CHS is responsible calculating the CVR Payment Amount; (b) CHS has the option of selecting the Independent Advisor to assist it in calculating the CVR Payment Amount; (c) any reports and calculations of such Independent Advisor are binding on the third-party holders of the CVRs; and (d) that, pursuant to Section 3.1(e) of the CVR Agreement, if the CVR Payment Amount is greater than zero, the Payment Certificate will specify the date that CHS will deliver cash to the CVR Trustee, which will be within sixty (60) days of the date on which Final Resolution occurs.
After considering CHS's comment, the Department notes the foregoing revisions to Footnote 12.
4.
After considering CHS's comment, the Department notes this clarification to Representation 8.
5.
After considering CHS's comment, the Department notes this clarification to Representation 8.
Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, including the CHS comment, the Department has determined to grant the exemption as modified herein.
For further information regarding the CHS comment and other matters discussed herein, interested persons are encouraged to obtain copies of the exemption application files (Exemption Application Nos. D-11929 and D-11930) the Department is maintaining in this case. The complete application files, as well as all supplemental submissions received by the Department, are made available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on June 28, 2017, at 82 FR 29340.
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2) and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act shall not apply, effective January 27, 2014, to: (1) The acquisition by the Plans of contingent value rights (CVRs) received by the Plans in connection with the merger (the Merger Transaction) of FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS), with and into Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), with HMA surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CHS; and (2) the holding of the CVRs by the Plans.
This exemption is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The receipt of the CVRs by the Plans occurred in connection with the Merger Transaction, which was approved by ninety-nine percent (99%) of the shareholders of common stock of HMA (HMA Common Stock);
(b) For purposes of the Merger Transaction, all HMA Common Stock shareholders, including the Plans, were treated in the same manner;
(c) The acquisition of the CVRs by the Plans occurred on the same terms, and in the same manner, as the acquisition
(d) The terms of the Merger Transaction were negotiated at arm's-length;
(e) No fees, commissions or other charges are paid by the Plans with respect to the acquisition and holding of the CVRs by the Plans;
(f) Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC and UBS Securities LLC advised HMA that the consideration received by HMA shareholders, including participants of the Plans, in exchange for their Shares was “fair,” from a financial point of view;
(g) The Plans have not and will not acquire or hold CVRs other than those acquired in connection with the Merger Transaction;
(h) Participants in the Plans may direct the Plans' trustee to sell CVRs allocated to their respective participant accounts in the Plans, at any time;
(i) The Plans do not sell a CVR to CHS or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, including HMA, in a non-“blind” transaction;
(j) For so long as the CVRs remain a permissible investment for each Plan, the retention or disposition of CVRs allocated to a participant's account has been and will be administered in accordance with the provisions of each Plan that are in effect for individually-directed investments of participant accounts;
(k) CHS will exercise its option under Section 3.1(d) of the CVR Agreement to retain an independent advisor (the Independent Advisor) to assist with the calculation of the CVR Payment Amount. The Independent Advisor retained by CHS (and any successor) will be an advisor that: (1) Has the appropriate training, experience, and facilities to perform such calculation; (2) does not directly or indirectly control, is not controlled by and is not under common control with, CHS; (3) does not directly or indirectly receive any compensation or other consideration in connection with any transaction described in this exemption other than for acting as Independent Advisor in the manner described in the CVR Agreement, and provided that the compensation payable is not contingent upon, or in any way affected by, the Independent Advisor's ultimate determination of the CVR Payment Amount; and (4) does not receive annual gross revenue from CHS, during any year of its engagement, that exceeds three percent (3%) of such Independent Advisor's annual gross revenue from all sources (for federal income tax purposes) for its prior tax year. CHS will deliver to the Department copies of the reports and calculations of such Independent Advisor used to determine the CVR Payment Amount; and
(l) No excess portion of the CVR Payment Amount will revert to CHS, its successors, or their affiliates.
Anna Mpras Vaughan of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department is granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA or the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).
The Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing with respect to the notice of proposed exemption (the Notice), published on August 3, 2017, at 82 FR 36214. The Notice, along with an accompanying supplemental notice, was distributed: (1) By email to those interested persons who agreed to receive electronic communication regarding the Retirement Plan; and (2) by first-class mail to interested persons who had not agreed to receive electronic communications. Although all comments and requests for hearing were initially due by September 17, 2017, the Applicant advised the Department that due to a printer error, distribution of the Notice was delayed by three days past the distribution period set forth therein. Therefore, the Department extended the comment period by three calendar days, to September 20, 2017.
During the comment period, the Department received numerous telephone inquiries from Plan participants that generally concerned matters outside the scope of the exemption, and 27 written comments. The Department did not receive any requests for a public hearing from any of the commenters.
Of the written comments the Department received, many of the commenters expressed concern that the exemption might adversely affect the payment of their benefits. Therefore, they urged the Department not to approve the exemption and allow Liberty Mutual to engage in investments on behalf of the Plan that would not be in the best interests of Plan participants or could be motivated by conflicts of interest.
Many of the commenters also expressed confusion about the intent, scope, and/or impact of the proposed exemption.
In response to the commenters' concerns, the Applicant states that the proposed exemption imposes duties, obligations and conditions on the conduct of Liberty Mutual when acting as a discretionary fiduciary on behalf of the Plan. The Applicant states that the proposed exemption does not in any way authorize Liberty Mutual to make inappropriate investments, to commingle the Plan's assets with Liberty Mutual's own accounts, or to use Plan assets to finance Liberty Mutual's corporate transactions. The Applicant represents that the proposed exemption is intended to enable professional asset managers to effect transactions that they have concluded meet their fiduciary obligations to make investments prudently and in the best interests of Plan participants. Coupled with the generally applicable duties and responsibilities that ERISA imposes on fiduciaries, and the conditions and limitations contained in the proposed exemption to protect the interests of Plan participants, the Applicant states
The Applicant acknowledges that many of the commenters noted their reliance on income from the Plan and fear of changes that could jeopardize their benefits, and represents that it understands these apprehensions. The Applicant states that it shares the commenters' views that the assets of the Plan need to be invested prudently and in a manner that will enable the Plan to meet its obligations to Plan participants. The Applicant further states that, without the benefit of the exemption, certain investments that would be made to protect or enhance the assets of the Plan might otherwise be prohibited or could only be made with greater expense and/or complexity due to reliance on third-party service providers.
Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. The complete application file (Application No. D-11869), including all supplemental submissions received by the Department, is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on August 3, 2017, at 82 FR 36214.
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(B), and 406(a)(1)(D) of ERISA and the sanctions resulting from the application of sections 4975(a) and 4975(b) of the Code, by reason of sections 4975(c)(1)(A), 4975(c)(1)(B), and 4975(c)(1)(D) of the Code, shall not apply to a transaction between a party in interest with respect to a Liberty Mutual Plan (as defined in Section II(h)) and such Liberty Mutual Plan, provided that the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager (as defined in Section II(a)) has discretionary authority or control with respect to the assets of the Liberty Mutual Plan involved in the transaction and the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The terms of the transaction are negotiated on behalf of the Liberty Mutual Plan by, or under the authority and general direction of, the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager, and either the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager or, so long as the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager retains full fiduciary responsibility with respect to the transaction, a sub-adviser acting in accordance with written guidelines established and administered by the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager, makes the decision on behalf of the Plan to enter into the transaction;
(b) The transaction is not described in—
(1) Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2006-16 (71 FR 63786, October 31, 2006) (relating to securities lending arrangements) (as amended or superseded);
(2) Prohibited Transaction Exemption 83-1 (48 FR 895, January 7, 1983) (relating to acquisitions by plans of interests in mortgage pools) (as amended or superseded); or
(3) Prohibited Transaction Exemption 88-59 (53 FR 24811, June 30, 1988) (relating to certain mortgage financing arrangements) (as amended or superseded);
(c) The transaction is not part of an arrangement, agreement, or understanding designed to violate or evade compliance with ERISA or the Code;
(d) At the time the transaction is entered into, and at the time of any subsequent renewal or modification thereof that requires the consent of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager, the terms of the transaction are at least as favorable to the Liberty Mutual Plan as the terms generally available in arm's length transactions between unrelated parties;
(e) The party in interest dealing with the Liberty Mutual Plan:
(1) Is a party in interest with respect to the Liberty Mutual Plan (including a fiduciary); either
(A) Solely by reason of providing services to the Liberty Mutual Plan, or solely by reason of a relationship to a service provider described in section 3(14)(F), (G), (H) or (I) of ERISA; or
(B) Solely by reason of being a 10-percent or more shareholder, partner or joint venturer, in a person, which is 50 percent or more owned by an employer of employees covered by the Liberty Mutual Plan (directly or indirectly in capital or profits), or the parent company of such an employer, provided that such person is not controlled by, controlling, or under common control with such employer; or
(C) By reason of both (A) and (B) only; and
(2) Does not have discretionary authority or control with respect to the investment of the Liberty Mutual Plan assets involved in the transaction and does not render investment advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to those assets;
(f) The party in interest dealing with the Liberty Mutual Plan is neither the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager nor a person related to the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager (within the meaning of Section II(d));
(g) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager adopts, maintains, and follows written policies and procedures (the Policies) that:
(1) Are designed to assure compliance with the conditions of the exemption and its fiduciary responsibilities and avoid any conflicts of interest or risk exposure, including an investment allocation policy and best execution policy, and ensure that the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager and its personnel operate within an impartial conduct standard in accordance with a duty of loyalty and prudence pursuant to section 404 of the Act with respect to the Liberty Mutual Plan when conducting business with, or on behalf of, the applicable Liberty Mutual Plan;
(2) Describe the objective requirements of the exemption, and describe the steps adopted by the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager to assure compliance with each of these requirements:
(A) The requirements of Section I of the exemption, including Section I(a) regarding the discretionary authority or control of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager with respect to the plan assets involved in the transaction, in negotiating the terms of the transaction, and with regard to the decision on behalf of the Liberty Mutual Plan to enter into the transaction;
(B) That any procedure for approval or veto of the transaction meets the requirements of Section I(a);
(C) For a transaction described in Section I:
(i) That the transaction is not entered into with any person who is excluded from relief under Section I(e)(1), Section I(e)(2), or Section I(f); and
(ii) That the transaction is not described in any of the class exemptions listed in Section I(b);
(3) Are reasonably designed to prevent the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager or its personnel from violating ERISA or other federal or state laws or regulations applicable with respect to the investment of the assets of the applicable Liberty Mutual Plan (Applicable Law);
(4) Cover, at a minimum, the following areas to the extent applicable to the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager:
(A) Portfolio management processes, including allocation of investment opportunities among any Liberty Mutual Plan and Liberty Mutual's proprietary investments, taking into account the investment objectives of the applicable Liberty Mutual Plan and any restrictions under Applicable Law;
(B) Trading practices, including procedures by which the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager satisfies its best execution obligation, and allocates aggregated trades among all Liberty Mutual Plans and/or Liberty Mutual proprietary accounts for which it provides investment management services;
(C) Personal trading activities of any employee of Liberty Mutual and its subsidiaries who has personal involvement and responsibility for investment decisions regarding the investment of the assets of the applicable Liberty Mutual Plan (an LM Advisory Employee);
(D) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's policies regulating conflicts of interest;
(E) The accuracy of disclosures, including account statements, made to the trustee(s) or fiduciaries of any Liberty Mutual Plan or to any regulators;
(F) Safeguarding of Liberty Mutual Plan assets from conversion or inappropriate use by any LM Advisory Employee;
(G) The accurate creation of required records and their maintenance in a manner that secures them from unauthorized alteration or use and protects them from untimely destruction;
(H) Processes to value holdings of any Liberty Mutual Plan, to the extent, if any, that such valuation is within the control of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager;
(I) Safeguards for the privacy protection of records and information pertaining to each Liberty Mutual Plan; and
(J) Business continuity plans; and
(5) Any violations of or failure to comply with items (1) through (4) above are corrected promptly upon discovery and any such violations or compliance failures not promptly corrected are reported, upon discovering the failure to promptly correct, in writing to appropriate corporate officers, the Chief Compliance Officer (as described below in Section I(j)) of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager, and the independent auditor described in Section I(h) below, and a fiduciary of the relevant Liberty Mutual Plan; the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will not be treated as having failed to adopt, maintain, or follow the Policies, provided that it corrects any instances of noncompliance promptly when discovered or when they reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and provided that it adheres to the reporting requirements set forth in this item (5);
(h)(1) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager submits to an audit conducted annually by an independent auditor, who has been prudently selected and who has the appropriate technical training or experience and proficiency with ERISA's fiduciary responsibility provisions and applicable securities laws to evaluate the adequacy of, and compliance with, the Policies described herein, and compliance with the requirements of the exemption, and so represents in writing. Upon the Department's request, the auditor must demonstrate its qualifications as required by this paragraph and its independence from Liberty Mutual. The audit must be incorporated into the Policies and cover a consecutive twelve-month period beginning on the effective date of the exemption. Each annual audit must be completed within six months following the end of the twelve-month period to which the audit relates;
(2) To the extent necessary for the auditor, in its sole opinion, to complete its audit and comply with the conditions for relief described herein, and as permitted by law, the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager and, if applicable, Liberty Mutual, will grant the auditor unconditional access to its business, including, but not limited to: its computer systems, business records, transactional data, workplace locations, training materials, and personnel;
(3) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor to determine whether the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager has complied with the conditions for the exemption, including the requirement to adopt, maintain, and follow Policies in Section I(g);
(4) The auditor's engagement shall specifically require the auditor to test the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's operational compliance with the exemption, including the Policies in Section I(g). In this regard, the auditor must test a sample of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's transactions involving the Liberty Mutual Plan sufficient in size and nature to afford the auditor a reasonable basis to determine the operational compliance with the Policies;
(5) For each audit, the auditor shall issue a written report (the Audit Report) to Liberty Mutual and the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager that describes the procedures performed by the auditor during the course of its examination, to be completed within six months following the end of the twelve-month period to which the audit relates. The Audit Report shall include the auditor's specific determinations regarding the compliance with the conditions for the exemption; the adequacy of, and compliance with, the Policies; the auditor's recommendations (if any) with respect to strengthening such Policies; and any instances of noncompliance with the conditions for the exemption or the Policies described in paragraph (g) above. Any determinations made by the auditor regarding the adequacy of the Policies and the auditor's recommendations (if any) with respect to strengthening the Policies shall be promptly addressed by the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager, and any actions taken by the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager to address such recommendations shall be included in an addendum to the Audit Report. Any determinations by the auditor that the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager has adopted, maintained, and followed sufficient Policies shall not be based solely or in substantial part on an absence of evidence indicating noncompliance. In this last regard, any finding that the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager has complied with the requirements under this subsection must be based on evidence that demonstrates the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager has actually adopted, maintained, and followed the Policies required by this exemption;
(6) The auditor shall notify the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager and Liberty Mutual of any instances of noncompliance with the conditions for the exemption or the Policies identified by the auditor within five (5) business days after such noncompliance is identified by the auditor, regardless of whether the audit has been completed as of that date;
(7) With respect to each Audit Report, the General Counsel or the Chief Compliance Officer (described in Section I(j)) of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager certifies in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the officer has reviewed the Audit Report and this exemption; addressed, corrected, or remedied any inadequacies identified in the Audit Report; and determined that the Policies in effect at the time of signing are adequate to ensure compliance with the conditions of this exemption and with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code;
(8) A senior executive officer with a direct reporting line to the highest ranking compliance officer of Liberty Mutual reviews the Audit Report and certifies in writing, under penalty of
(9) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager makes its Audit Report unconditionally available for examination by any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department, other relevant regulators, and any participant in a Liberty Mutual Plan;
(i) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will prepare and make available to all participants of, and beneficiaries entitled to receive benefits under, the Liberty Mutual Plans (the Eligible Recipients) a plain English, narrative brochure (the Brochure) that contains all substantive information, comparable to that required by Part 2A of Form ADV filed under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, but modified such that the disclosure is relevant to Eligible Recipients with respect to the management of the applicable Liberty Mutual Plan;
(1) The Brochure shall include, among other things:
(A) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's investment strategy with respect to the applicable Liberty Mutual Plan;
(B) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's policies regarding conflicts of interest;
(C) Any disciplinary information related to employees of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager; and
(D) A prominent statement that the Eligible Recipients may request a copy of the Policies, with instructions on how to make such request and receive such copy;
(2) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager must make the Brochure available to the Eligible Recipients: (1) With respect to any Liberty Mutual Plan for which Liberty Mutual or its affiliate is then acting as an investment manager, within 90 days of the effective date of this exemption; and (2) with respect to any other Liberty Mutual Plan for which any Liberty Mutual Asset Manager thereafter becomes an investment manager, within ten (10) business days of the date that the applicable Investment Management Agreement or Sub-Adviser Agreement with a Liberty Mutual Plan becomes effective;
(3) Liberty Mutual annually updates such brochure (the Updated Brochure), containing or accompanied by a summary of material changes. Each Updated Brochure that is made available following the completion of the first audit required with respect to any Liberty Mutual Asset Manager in accordance with this exemption must include a prominently displayed statement indicating that the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager has completed the required audit, and must also provide clear instructions for obtaining a copy of the audit;
(4) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will be deemed to have met the requirements pertaining to the provision of the Brochure and the Updated Brochure if it makes such documents available to the Eligible Recipients through a prominently displayed link on a website (the Plan Benefits website) where it makes available information to the Eligible Recipients about their benefits and rights under the applicable Liberty Mutual Plan (Plan Information), and contact information for an appropriate representative of Liberty Mutual to direct inquiries from the Eligible Recipients, which is readily available to such Eligible Recipients. Notwithstanding the above, the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will not be deemed to have met the requirements of this subparagraph unless it provides notice of the Plan Benefits website, and the link to the Brochure and Updated Brochure at least once annually, to all Eligible Recipients;
(5) For any such Eligible Recipient to whom Liberty Mutual makes Plan Information available by hard copy or other means (Supplemental Delivery), the Brochure and the Updated Brochure must be provided to such Eligible Recipient at the same time and by the same means that Plan Information is provided;
(6) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will also provide supplements to the Brochure (each, a Brochure Supplement) that contain information about any LM Advisory Employee, including the LM Advisory Employee's educational background, business experience, other business activities, and disciplinary history;
(7) Each Brochure Supplement must be made available in the same manner as the Brochure, and must be posted to the Plan Benefits website, not later than 90 days following the date that any such LM Advisory Employee begins to provide advisory services to that Liberty Mutual Plan. Such Brochure Supplement must be included with the next Updated Brochure included in the material provided to any Eligible Recipient receiving such Updated Brochure by Supplemental Delivery;
(8) With respect to any individuals who become Eligible Recipients with respect to any Liberty Mutual Plan for which Liberty Mutual or its affiliate is then acting as an investment manager (the New Eligible Recipients) after the delivery of the Brochure to the Eligible Recipients with respect to the Liberty Mutual Plan, the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will provide a copy of the Brochure as well as the most recent Updated Brochure, if applicable, and any Brochure Supplements related to LM Advisory Employees employed by the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager at the time the New Eligible Recipients became Eligible Recipients, within 90 days of the New Eligible Recipients becoming Eligible Recipients with respect to the Liberty Mutual Plan. The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will be deemed to have met the disclosure requirements pertaining to the New Eligible Recipients if it makes the applicable documents available to the New Eligible Recipients through a prominently displayed link on the Plan Benefits website described in section I(i)(4) of this exemption. Notwithstanding the above, the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will not be deemed to have met the requirements of this subparagraph unless it provides notice of the Plan Benefits website, and the link to the Brochure, Updated Brochure, and Brochure Supplements to all New Eligible Recipients. For any such New Eligible Recipient to whom Liberty Mutual makes Plan Information available by Supplemental Delivery, the Brochure and the Updated Brochure must be provided to such New Eligible Recipient at the same time and by the same means that Plan Information is provided;
(j) Each Liberty Mutual Asset Manager must establish an internal compliance program that addresses the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's performance of its fiduciary and substantive obligations under ERISA (the Compliance Program);
(1) Each Liberty Mutual Asset Manager must designate a Chief Compliance Officer (the CCO), who must be knowledgeable about ERISA and have the authority to develop and enforce appropriate compliance policies and procedures for the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager;
(2) As part of the Compliance Program, each Liberty Mutual Asset Manager must adopt and enforce a written code of ethics that, among other things, will reflect the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's fiduciary duties to the Liberty Mutual Plans. At a minimum, the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's code of ethics must:
(A) Set forth a minimum standard of conduct for all LM Advisory Employees and any other employees of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager whose responsibilities include assisting the LM Advisory Employees in managing the investments of any Liberty Mutual Plan (the LM Facilitating Employees);
(B) Require LM Advisory Employees and LM Facilitating Employees to comply with Applicable Law in
(C) Require each LM Advisory Employee to report his or her securities holdings at the later of the time that the person becomes an LM Advisory Employee or within 90 days after this exemption becomes effective and at least once annually thereafter and to make a report at least once quarterly of all personal securities transactions in reportable securities to the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's CCO or other designated person;
(D) Require the CCO or other designated persons to pre-approve investments by any LM Advisory Employee in IPOs or limited offerings;
(E) Require each LM Advisory Employee or LM Facilitating Employees to promptly report any violation of Applicable Law to the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's CCO or other designated person;
(F) Require the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager to provide training on applicable law and to obtain a written acknowledgment from each LM Advisory Employee documenting his/her agreement to abide by the code of ethics, the Policies, and applicable law; and
(G) Require the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager to keep records of any violations of applicable law and of any actions taken against the violators;
(k) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager must act in the Best Interest of the Liberty Mutual Plan at the time of the transaction. For purposes of this paragraph, a Liberty Mutual Asset Manager acts in the “Best Interest” of the Liberty Mutual Plan when the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager acts with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims, based on the investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, and needs of the Liberty Mutual Plan, without regard to the financial or other interests of the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager, any affiliate or other party;
(l) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's statements about material conflicts of interest and any other matters relevant to the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager's relationship with the Liberty Mutual Plan, are not materially misleading at the time they are made. For purposes of this paragraph, a “material conflict of interest” exists when a Liberty Mutual Asset Manager has a financial interest that a reasonable person would conclude could affect the exercise of its best judgment as a Liberty Mutual Asset Manager; and
(m) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager will not charge any asset management fees or receive any fee in connection with transactions covered by this exemption.
(a) The term “Liberty Mutual Asset Manager” means Liberty Mutual or any organization that is either a direct or indirect 80 percent or more owned subsidiary of Liberty Mutual, or a direct or indirect 80 percent more owned subsidiary of a parent organization of Liberty Mutual, provided that such Liberty Mutual Asset Manager:
(1) Is an insurance company which is qualified under the laws of more than one State to manage, acquire, or dispose of any assets of a plan, which company has, as of the last day of its most recent fiscal year, net worth (capital, paid-in and contributed surplus, unassigned surplus, contingency reserves, group contingency reserves, and special reserves) in excess of $1,000,000;
(2) Is subject to supervision and examination by a State authority having supervision over insurance companies and is subject to periodic audits by applicable State insurance regulators in accordance with the requirements of applicable state law, which, under current law, would be no less than once every five years;
(3) Has any arrangements between it and any Liberty Mutual Plan reviewed by the applicable State insurance regulators, including any investment management agreements (or revisions thereto) with the Liberty Mutual Plan and sub-advisor agreements with any other Liberty Mutual Asset Managers, the results of which will be made available without limitation to the independent auditor conducting the audit required under Section I(i);
(4) As of the last day of its most recent fiscal year, has under its management and control total assets in excess of $1 billion; and
(5) Together with its affiliates, maintains Liberty Mutual Plans holding aggregate assets of at least $500 million as of the last day of each Liberty Mutual Plan's reporting year;
(b) For purposes of Sections II(a) and II(h), an “affiliate” of a Liberty Mutual Asset Manager means a member of either (1) a controlled group of corporations (as defined in section 414(b) of the Code) of which the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager is a member, or (2) a group of trades or businesses under common control (as defined in section 414(c) of the Code) of which the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager is a member; provided that “50 percent” shall be substituted for “80 percent” wherever “80 percent” appears in section 414(b) or 414(c) of the Code or the rules thereunder;
(c) The term “party in interest” means a person described in section 3(14) of ERISA and includes a “disqualified person” as defined in section 4975(e)(2) of the Code;
(d) A Liberty Mutual Asset Manager is “related” to a party in interest for purposes of Section I(f) of this exemption, if, as of the last day of its most recent calendar quarter: (i) The Liberty Mutual Asset Manager (or a person controlling, or controlled by, the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager) owns a ten percent or more interest in the party in interest; or (ii) the party in interest (or a person controlling, or controlled by, the party in interest) owns a 10 percent or more interest in the Liberty Mutual Asset Manager.
For purposes of this definition:
(1) The term “interest” means with respect to ownership of an entity—
(A) The combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote or the total value of the shares of all classes of stock of the entity if the entity is a corporation,
(B) The capital interest or the profits interest of the entity if the entity is a partnership, or
(C) The beneficial interest of the entity if the entity is a trust or unincorporated enterprise; and
(2) A person is considered to own an interest if, other than in a fiduciary capacity, the person has or shares the authority—
(A) To exercise any voting rights or to direct some other person to exercise the voting rights relating to such interest, or
(B) To dispose or to direct the disposition of such interest; and
(3) The term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual;
(e) For purposes of this exemption, the time as of which any transaction occurs is the date upon which the transaction is entered into. In addition, in the case of a transaction that is continuing, the transaction shall be deemed to occur until it is terminated. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as exempting a transaction entered into by a plan which becomes a transaction described in section 406 of ERISA or section 4975 of the Code while the transaction is continuing, unless the conditions of the exemption were met either at the time the transaction was entered into or at the time the transaction would have become
(f) The term “LMGAMI” means Liberty Mutual Group Asset Management Inc., a separate investment management subsidiary of Liberty Mutual;
(g) The term “Liberty Mutual” means Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; and
(h) The term “Liberty Mutual Plan” means the Liberty Mutual Retirement Benefit Plan and any other employee benefit plan subject to the fiduciary responsibility provisions of Part IV of Title I of ERISA maintained by Liberty Mutual or an affiliate of Liberty Mutual, and covering the employees of such entities.
Scott Ness of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8561. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing with respect to the notice of proposed exemption, published on August 3, 2017, at 82 FR 36224. All comments and requests for public hearing were due by September 18, 2017.
Subsequent to the publication of the proposed exemption, the Applicants informed the Department, in a memorandum dated October 26, 2017, that there were no interested persons to whom notice of the proposed exemption could be provided. Therefore, this final exemption is now effective as of the date this grant notice is published in the
Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. The complete application file (Application No. D-11916), including all supplemental submissions received by the Department, is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on August 3, 2017, at 82 FR 36224.
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(D) and 406(b) of the Act (or ERISA) and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of sections 4975(c)(1)(D) through (F) of the Code,
(a)(1) Each Client Plan which is invested directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund either:
(i) Does not pay to Russell Investments, for the entire period of such investment, any investment management fee, any investment advisory fee, or any similar fee at the plan-level (the Plan-Level Management Fee), as defined below in Section IV(m), with respect to any of the assets of such Client Plan which are invested directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund; or
(ii) Pays to Russell Investments a Plan-Level Management Fee, based on total assets of such Client Plan under management by Russell Investments at the plan-level, from which a credit has been subtracted from such Plan-Level Management Fee, where the amount subtracted represents such Client Plan's pro rata share of any investment advisory fee and any similar fee (the Affiliated Fund Level Advisory Fee), as defined below in Section IV(o), paid by such Affiliated Fund to Russell Investments.
If, during any fee period, in the case of a Client Plan invested directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund, such Client Plan has prepaid its Plan Level Management Fee, and such Client Plan purchases shares of an Affiliated Fund directly, the requirement of this Section II(a)(1)(ii) shall be deemed met with respect to such prepaid Plan-Level Management Fee, if, by a method reasonably designed to accomplish the same, the amount of the prepaid Plan-Level Management Fee that constitutes the fee with respect to the assets of such Client Plan invested directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund:
(A) Is anticipated and subtracted from the prepaid Plan-Level Management Fee at the time of the payment of such fee; or
(B) Is returned to such Client Plan, no later than during the immediately following fee period; or
(C) Is offset against the Plan-Level Management Fee for the immediately following fee period or for the fee period immediately following thereafter.
For purposes of Section II(a)(1)(ii), a Plan-Level Management Fee shall be deemed to be prepaid for any fee period, if the amount of such Plan-Level Management Fee is calculated as of a date not later than the first day of such period.
(2) Each Client Plan invested in a Collective Fund the assets of which are not invested in shares of an Affiliated Fund:
(i) Does not pay to Russell Investments for the entire period of such
The requirements of this Section II(a)(2)(i) do not preclude the payment of a Collective Fund-Level Management Fee by such Collective Fund to Russell Investments, based on the assets of such Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund; or
(ii) Does not pay to Russell Investments for the entire period of such investment any Collective Fund-Level Management Fee with respect to any assets of such Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund.
The requirements of this Section II(a)(2)(ii) do not preclude the payment of a Plan-Level Management Fee by such Client Plan to Russell Investments, based on total assets of such Client Plan under management by Russell Investments at the plan-level; or
(iii) Such Client Plan pays to Russell Investments a Plan-Level Management Fee, based on total assets of such Client Plan under management by Russell Investments at the plan-level, from which a credit has been subtracted from such Plan-Level Management Fee (the “Net” Plan-Level Management Fee), where the amount subtracted represents such Client Plan's pro rata share of any Collective Fund-Level Management Fee paid by such Collective Fund to Russell Investments.
The requirements of this Section II(a)(2)(iii) do not preclude the payment of a Collective Fund-Level Management Fee by such Collective Fund to Russell Investments, based on the assets of such Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund.
(3) Each Client Plan invested in a Collective Fund, the assets of which are invested in shares of an Affiliated Fund:
(i) Does not pay to Russell Investments for the entire period of such investment any Plan-Level Management Fee (including any “Net” Plan-Level Management Fee, as described, above, in Section II(a)(2)(ii)), and does not pay directly to Russell Investments or indirectly to Russell Investments through the Collective Fund for the entire period of such investment any Collective Fund-Level Management Fee with respect to the assets of such Client Plan which are invested in such Affiliated Fund; or
(ii) Pays indirectly to Russell Investments a Collective Fund-Level Management Fee, in accordance with Section II(a)(2)(i) above, based on the total assets of such Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund, from which a credit has been subtracted from such Collective Fund-Level Management Fee, where the amount subtracted represents such Client Plan's pro rata share of any Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee paid to Russell Investments by such Affiliated Fund; and does not pay to Russell Investments for the entire period of such investment any Plan-Level Management Fee with respect to any assets of such Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund; or
(iii) Pays to Russell Investments a Plan-Level Management Fee, in accordance with Section II(a)(2)(ii) above, based on the total assets of such Client Plan under management by Russell Investments at the plan-level, from which a credit has been subtracted from such Plan-Level Management Fee, where the amount subtracted represents such Client Plan's pro rata share of any Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee paid to Russell Investments by such Affiliated Fund; and does not pay directly to Russell Investments or indirectly to Russell Investments through the Collective Fund for the entire period of such investment any Collective Fund-Level Management Fee with respect to any assets of such Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund; or
(iv) Pays to Russell Investments a “Net” Plan-Level Management Fee, in accordance with Section II(a)(2)(iii) above, from which a further credit has been subtracted from such “Net” Plan-Level Management Fee, where the amount of such further credit which is subtracted represents such Client Plan's pro rata share of any Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee paid to Russell Investments by such Affiliated Fund.
Provided that the conditions of this proposed exemption are satisfied, the requirements of Section II(a)(1)(i)-(ii) and Section II(a)(3)(i)-(iv) do not preclude the payment of an Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee by an Affiliated Fund to Russell Investments under the terms of an investment advisory agreement adopted in accordance with section 15 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Investment Company Act). Further, the requirements of Section II(a)(1)(i)-(ii) and Section II(a)(3)(i)-(iv) do not preclude the payment of a fee by an Affiliated Fund to Russell Investments for the provision by Russell Investments of Secondary Services to such Affiliated Fund under the terms of a duly adopted agreement between Russell Investments and such Affiliated Fund.
For the purpose of Section II(a)(1)(ii) and Section II(a)(3)(ii)-(iv), in calculating a Client Plan's pro rata share of an Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee, Russell Investments must use an amount representing the “gross” advisory fee paid to Russell Investments by such Affiliated Fund. For purposes of this paragraph, the “gross” advisory fee is the amount paid to Russell Investments by such Affiliated Fund, including the amount paid by such Affiliated Fund to sub-advisers.
(b) The purchase price paid and the sales price received by a Client Plan for shares in an Affiliated Fund purchased or sold directly, and the purchase price paid and the sales price received by a Client Plan for shares in an Affiliated Fund purchased or sold indirectly through a Collective Fund, is the net asset value per share (NAV), as defined below in Section IV(f), at the time of the transaction, and is the same purchase price that would have been paid and the same sales price that would have been received for such shares by any other shareholder of the same class of shares in such Affiliated Fund at that time.
(c) Russell Investments, including any officer and any director of Russell Investments, does not purchase any shares of an Affiliated Fund from, and does not sell any shares of an Affiliated Fund to, any Client Plan which invests directly in such Affiliated Fund, and Russell Investments, including any officer and director of Russell Investments, does not purchase any shares of any Affiliated Fund from, and does not sell any shares of an Affiliated Fund to, any Collective Fund in which a Client Plan invests indirectly in shares of such Affiliated Fund.
(d) No sales commissions, no redemption fees, and no other similar fees are paid in connection with any purchase and in connection with any sale by a Client Plan directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund, and no sales commissions, no redemption fees, and no other similar fees are paid by a Collective Fund in connection with any purchase, and in connection with any sale, of shares in an Affiliated Fund by a Client Plan indirectly through such Collective Fund. However, this Section II(d) does not prohibit the payment of a redemption fee, if:
(1) Such redemption fee is paid only to an Affiliated Fund; and
(2) The existence of such redemption fee is disclosed in the summary prospectus for such Affiliated Fund in effect both at the time of any purchase of shares in such Affiliated Fund and at the time of any sale of such shares.
(e) The combined total of all fees received by Russell Investments is not in excess of reasonable compensation
(1) By Russell Investments to each Client Plan;
(2) By Russell Investments to each Collective Fund in which a Client Plan invests;
(3) By Russell Investments to each Affiliated Fund in which a Client Plan invests directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund; and
(4) By Russell Investments to each Affiliated Fund in which a Client Plan invests indirectly in shares of such Affiliated Fund through a Collective Fund.
(f) Russell Investments does not receive any fees payable pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company Act in connection with the transactions covered by this proposed exemption;
(g) No Client Plan is an employee benefit plan sponsored or maintained by Russell Investments.
(h)(1) In the case of a Client Plan investing directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund, a second fiduciary (the Second Fiduciary), as defined below in Section IV(h), acting on behalf of such Client Plan, receives, in writing, in advance of any investment by such Client Plan directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund, a full and detailed disclosure via first class mail or via personal delivery of (or, if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery, through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q), as set forth below) information concerning such Affiliated Fund, including but not limited to the items listed below:
(i) A current summary prospectus issued by each such Affiliated Fund;
(ii) A statement describing the fees, including the nature and extent of any differential between the rates of such fees for:
(A) Investment advisory and similar services to be paid to Russell Investments by each Affiliated Fund;
(B) Secondary Services to be paid to Russell Investments by each such Affiliated Fund; and
(C) All other fees to be charged by Russell Investments to such Client Plan and to each such Affiliated Fund and all other fees to be paid to Russell Investments by each such Client Plan and by each such Affiliated Fund;
(iii) The reasons why Russell Investments may consider investment directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund by such Client Plan to be appropriate for such Client Plan;
(iv) A statement describing whether there are any limitations applicable to Russell Investments with respect to which assets of such Client Plan may be invested directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund, and if so, the nature of such limitations; and
(v) Upon the request of the Second Fiduciary acting on behalf of such Client Plan, a copy of the notice of proposed exemption, a copy of the final exemption, if granted, and any other reasonably available information regarding the transactions which are the subject of this proposed exemption.
(2) In the case of a Client Plan whose assets are proposed to be invested in a Collective Fund after such Collective Fund has begun investing in shares of an Affiliated Fund, a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of such Client Plan, receives, in writing, in advance of any investment by such Client Plan in such Collective Fund, a full and detailed disclosure via first class mail or via personal delivery (or, if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery, through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q), as set forth below) of information concerning such Collective Fund and information concerning each such Affiliated Fund in which such Collective Fund is invested, including but not limited to the items listed, below:
(i) A current summary prospectus issued by each such Affiliated Fund;
(ii) A statement describing the fees, including the nature and extent of any differential between the rates of such fees for:
(A) Investment advisory and similar services to be paid to Russell Investments by each Affiliated Fund;
(B) Secondary Services to be paid to Russell Investments by each such Affiliated Fund; and
(C) All other fees to be charged by Russell Investments to such Client Plan, to such Collective Fund, and to each such Affiliated Fund and all other fees to be paid to Russell Investments by such Client Plan, by such Collective Fund, and by each such Affiliated Fund;
(iii) The reasons why Russell Investments may consider investment by such Client Plan in shares of each such Affiliated Fund indirectly through such Collective Fund to be appropriate for such Client Plan;
(iv) A statement describing whether there are any limitations applicable to Russell Investments with respect to which assets of such Client Plan may be invested indirectly in shares of each such Affiliated Fund through such Collective Fund, and if so, the nature of such limitations;
(v) Upon the request of the Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of such Client Plan, a copy of the Notice, a copy of the final exemption, if granted, and any other reasonably available information regarding the transactions which are the subject of this proposed exemption; and
(vi) A copy of the organizational documents of such Collective Fund which expressly provide for the addition of one or more Affiliated Funds to the portfolio of such Collective Fund.
(3) In the case of a Client Plan whose assets are proposed to be invested in a Collective Fund before such Collective Fund has begun investing in shares of any Affiliated Fund, a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of such Client Plan, receives, in writing, in advance of any investment by such Client Plan in such Collective Fund, a full and detailed disclosure via first class mail or via personal delivery (or, if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q), as set forth below) of information, concerning such Collective Fund, including but not limited to, the items listed below:
(i) A statement describing the fees, including the nature and extent of any differential between the rates of such fees for all fees to be charged by Russell Investments to such Client Plan and to such Collective Fund and all other fees to be paid to Russell Investments by such Client Plan, and by such Collective Fund;
(ii) Upon the request of the Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of such Client Plan, a copy of the Notice, a copy of the final exemption, if granted, and any other reasonably available information regarding the transactions which are the subject of this proposed exemption; and
(iii) A copy of the organizational documents of such Collective Fund which expressly provide for the addition of one or more Affiliated Funds to the portfolio of such Collective Fund.
(i) On the basis of the information, described above in Section II(h), a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of a Client Plan:
(1) Authorizes in writing the investment of the assets of such Client Plan, as applicable:
(i) Directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund;
(ii) Indirectly in shares of an Affiliated Fund through a Collective Fund where such Collective Fund has already invested in shares of an Affiliated Fund; and
(iii) In a Collective Fund which is not yet invested in shares of an Affiliated Fund but whose organizational document expressly provides for the addition of one or more Affiliated Funds to the portfolio of such Collective Fund; and
(2) Authorizes in writing, as applicable:
(i) The Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee received by Russell Investments for investment advisory services and similar services provided by Russell Investments to such Affiliated Fund;
(ii) The fee received by Russell Investments for Secondary Services provided by Russell Investments to such Affiliated Fund;
(iii) The Collective Fund-Level Management Fee received by Russell Investments for investment management, investment advisory, and similar services provided by Russell Investments to such Collective Fund in which such Client Plan invests;
(iv) The Plan-Level Management Fee received by Russell Investments for investment management and similar services provided by Russell Investments to such Client Plan at the plan-level; and
(v) The selection by Russell Investments of the applicable fee method, as described above in Section II(a)(1)-(3).
All authorizations made by a Second Fiduciary pursuant to this Section II(i) must be consistent with the responsibilities, obligations, and duties imposed on fiduciaries by Part 4 of Title I of the Act;
(j)(1) Any authorization, described above in Section II(i), and any authorization made pursuant to negative consent, as described below in Section II(k) and in Section II(l), made by a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of a Client Plan, shall be terminable at will by such Second Fiduciary, without penalty to such Client Plan (including any fee or charge related to such penalty), upon receipt by Russell Investments via first class mail, via personal delivery, or via electronic email of a written notification of the intent of such Second Fiduciary to terminate any such authorization;
(2) A form (the Termination Form), expressly providing an election to terminate any authorization, described above in Section II(i), or to terminate any authorization made pursuant to negative consent, as described below in Section II(k) and in Section II(l), with instructions on the use of such Termination Form, must be provided to such Second Fiduciary at least annually, either in writing via first class mail or via personal delivery (or if such Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q), as set forth below). However, if a Termination Form has been provided to such Second Fiduciary pursuant to Section II(k) or pursuant to Section II(l) below, then a Termination Form need not be provided pursuant to this Section II(j), until at least six (6) months, but no more than twelve (12) months, have elapsed, since the prior Termination Form was provided;
(3) The instructions for the Termination Form must include the following statements:
(i) Any authorization, described above in Section II(i), and any authorization made pursuant to negative consent, as described below in Section II(k) or in Section II(l), is terminable at will by a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of a Client Plan, without penalty to such Client Plan, upon receipt by Russell Investments via first class mail or via personal delivery or via electronic email of the Termination Form, or some other written notification of the intent of such Second Fiduciary to terminate such authorization;
(ii) As of the date that is at least thirty (30) days from the date that Russell Investments sends the Termination Form to such Second Fiduciary, the failure by such Second Fiduciary to return such Termination Form or the failure by such Second Fiduciary to provide some other written notification of the Client Plan's intent to terminate any authorization, described in Section II(i), or intent to terminate any authorization made pursuant to negative consent, as described below in Section II(k) or in Section II(l), will be deemed to be an approval by such Second Fiduciary;
(4) In the event that a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of a Client Plan, at any time returns a Termination Form or returns some other written notification of intent to terminate any authorization, as described above in Section II(i), or intent to terminate any authorization made pursuant to negative consent, as described below in Section II(k) or in Section II(l);
(i)(A) In the case of a Client Plan which invests directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund, the termination will be implemented by the withdrawal of all investments made by such Client Plan in the affected Affiliated Fund, and such withdrawal will be effected by Russell Investments within one (1) business day of the date that Russell Investments receives such Termination Form or receives from the Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of such Client Plan, some other written notification of intent to terminate any such authorization;
(B) From the date a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of a Client Plan that invests directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund, returns a Termination Form or returns some other written notification of intent to terminate such Client Plan's investment in such Affiliated Fund, such Client Plan will not be subject to pay a pro rata share of any Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee and will not be subject to pay any fees for Secondary Services paid to Russell Investments by such Affiliated Fund, or any other fees or charges;
(ii)(A) In the case of a Client Plan which invests in a Collective Fund, the termination will be implemented by the withdrawal of such Client Plan from all investments in such affected Collective, and such withdrawal will be implemented by Russell Investments within such time as may be necessary for withdrawal in an orderly manner that is equitable to the affected withdrawing Client Plan and to all non-withdrawing Client Plans, but in no event shall such withdrawal be implemented by Russell Investments more than five business (5) days after the day Russell Investments receives from the Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of such withdrawing Client Plan, a Termination Form or receives some other written notification of intent to terminate the investment of such Client Plan in such Collective Fund, unless such withdrawal is otherwise prohibited by a governmental entity with jurisdiction over the Collective Fund, or the Second Fiduciary fails to instruct Russell Investments as to where to reinvest or send the withdrawal proceeds; and
(B) From the date Russell Investments receives from a Second Fiduciary, acting on behalf of a Client Plan, that invests in a Collective Fund, a Termination Form or receives some other written notification of intent to terminate such Client Plan's investment in such Collective Fund, such Client Plan will not be subject to pay a pro rata share of any fees arising from the investment by such Client Plan in such Collective Fund, including any Collective Fund-Level Management Fee, nor will such Client Plan be subject to any other charges to the portfolio of such Collective Fund, including a pro rata share of any Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee and any fee for Secondary Services arising from the investment by such Collective Fund in an Affiliated Fund.
(k)(1) Russell Investments, at least thirty (30) days in advance of the implementation of each fee increase (Fee Increase(s)), as defined below in Section IV(l), must provide in writing via first class mail or via personal delivery (or if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q), as set forth below), a
(2) Subject to the crediting, interest-payback, and other requirements below, for each Client Plan affected by a Fee Increase, Russell Investments may implement such Fee Increase without waiting for the expiration of the 30-day period, described above in Section II(k)(1), provided Russell Investments does not begin implementation of such Fee Increase before the first day of the 30-day period, described above in Section II(k)(1), and provided further that the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) Russell Investments delivers, in the manner described in Section II(k)(1), to the Second Fiduciary for each affected Client Plan, the Notice of Change of Fees, as described in Section II(k)(1), accompanied by the Termination Form and by instructions on the use of such Termination Form, as described above in Section II(j)(3);
(ii) Each affected Client Plan receives from Russell Investments a credit in cash equal to each such Client Plan's pro rata share of such Fee Increase to be received by Russell Investments for the period from the date of the implementation of such Fee Increase to the earlier of:
(A) The date when an affected Client Plan, pursuant to Section II(j), terminates any authorization, as described above in Section II(i), or terminates any negative consent authorization, as described in Section II(k) or in Section II(l); or
(B) The 30th day after the day that Russell Investments delivers to the Second Fiduciary of each affected Client Plan the Notice of Change of Fees, described in Section II(k)(1), accompanied by the Termination Form and by the instructions on the use of such Termination Form, as described above in Section II(j)(3).
(iii) Russell Investments pays to each affected Client Plan the cash credit, as described above in Section II(k)(2)(ii), with interest thereon, no later than five (5) business days following the earlier of:
(A) The date such affected Client Plan, pursuant to Section II(j), terminates any authorization, as described above in Section II(i), or terminates, any negative consent authorization, as described in Section II(k) or in Section II(l); or
(B) The 30th day after the day that Russell Investments delivers to the Second Fiduciary of each affected Client Plan, the Notice of Change of Fees, described in Section II(k)(1), accompanied by the Termination Form and instructions on the use of such Termination Form, as described above in Section II(j)(3);
(iv) Interest on the credit in cash is calculated at the prevailing Federal funds rate plus two percent (2%) for the period from the day Russell Investments first implements the Fee Increase to the date Russell Investments pays such credit in cash, with interest thereon, to each affected Client Plan;
(v) An independent accounting firm (the Auditor) at least annually audits the payments made by Russell Investments to each affected Client Plan, audits the amount of each cash credit, plus the interest thereon, paid to each affected Client Plan, and verifies that each affected Client Plan received the correct amount of cash credit and the correct amount of interest thereon;
(vi) Such Auditor issues an audit report of its findings no later than six (6) months after the period to which such audit report relates, and provides a copy of such audit report to the Second Fiduciary of each affected Client Plan; and
(3) As of the date that is at least thirty (30) days from the date that Russell Investments sends to the Second Fiduciary of each affected Client Plan the Notice of Change of Fees and the Termination Form, the failure by such Second Fiduciary to return such Termination Form and the failure by such Second Fiduciary to provide some other written notification of the Client Plan's intent to terminate the authorization, described in Section II(i), or to terminate the negative consent authorization, as described in Section II(k) or in Section II(l), will be deemed to be an approval by such Second Fiduciary of such Fee Increase.
(l) Effective upon the date that the final exemption is granted, in the case of (a) a Client Plan which has received the disclosures detailed in Section II(h)(2)(i), II(h)(2)(ii)(A), II(h)(2)(ii)(B), II(h)(2)(ii)(C), II(h)(2)(iii), II(h)(2)(iv), II(h)(2)(v), and II(h)(2)(vi), and which has authorized the investment by such Client Plan in a Collective Fund in accordance with Section II(i)(1)(ii) above, and (b) a Client Plan which has received the disclosures detailed in Section II(h)(3)(i), II(h)(3)(ii), and II(h)(3)(iii), and which has authorized investment by such Client Plan in a Collective Fund, in accordance with Section II(i)(1)(iii) above, the authorization pursuant to negative consent in accordance with this Section II(l), applies to:
(1) The purchase, as an addition to the portfolio of such Collective Fund, of shares of an Affiliated Fund (a New Affiliated Fund) where such New Affiliated Fund has not been previously authorized pursuant to Section II(i)(1)(ii), or, as applicable, Section II(i)(1)(iii), and such Collective Fund may commence investing in such New Affiliated Fund without further written authorization from the Second Fiduciary of each Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund, provided that:
(i) The organizational documents of such Collective Fund expressly provide for the addition of one or more Affiliated Funds to the portfolio of such Collective Fund, and such documents were disclosed in writing via first class mail or via personal delivery (or, if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery, through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q)) to the Second Fiduciary of each such Client Plan invested in such Collective Fund, in advance of any investment by such Client Plan in such Collective Fund;
(ii) At least thirty (30) days in advance of the purchase by a Client Plan of shares of such New Affiliated Fund indirectly through a Collective Fund, Russell Investments provides, either in writing via first class or via personal delivery (or if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q)) to the Second Fiduciary of each Client Plan having an interest in such Collective Fund, full and detailed disclosures about such New Affiliated Fund, including but not limited to:
(A) A notice of Russell Investments' intent to add a New Affiliated Fund to the portfolio of such Collective Fund, where such notice may take the form of a proxy statement, letter, or similar communication that is separate from the summary prospectus of such New Affiliated Fund to the Second Fiduciary of each affected Client Plan;
(B) Such notice of Russell Investments' intent to add a New Affiliated Fund to the portfolio of such Collective Fund shall be accompanied by the information described in Section II(h)(2)(i), II(h)(2)(ii)(A), II(h)(2)(ii)(B), II(h)(2)(ii)(C), II(h)(2)(iii), II(h)(2)(iv), and II(2)(v) with respect to each such New Affiliated Fund proposed to be
(C) A Termination Form and instructions on the use of such Termination Form, as described in Section II(j)(3); and
(2) As of the date that is at least thirty (30) days from the date that Russell Investments sends to the Second Fiduciary of each affected Client Plan the information described above in Section II(l)(1)(ii), the failure by such Second Fiduciary to return the Termination Form or to provide some other written notification of the Client Plan's intent to terminate the authorization described in Section II(i)(1)(ii), or, as appropriate, to terminate the authorization, described in Section II(i)(1)(iii), or to terminate any authorization, pursuant to negative consent, as described in this Section II(l), will be deemed to be an approval by such Second Fiduciary of the addition of a New Affiliated Fund to the portfolio of such Collective Fund in which such Client Plan invests, and will result in the continuation of the authorization of Russell Investments to engage in the transactions which are the subject of this proposed exemption with respect to such New Affiliated Fund.
(m) Russell Investments is subject to the requirement to provide within a reasonable period of time any reasonably available information regarding the covered transactions that the Second Fiduciary of such Client Plan requests Russell Investments to provide.
(n) All dealings between a Client Plan and an Affiliated Fund, including all such dealings when such Client Plan is invested directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund and when such Client Plan is invested indirectly in such shares of such Affiliated Fund through a Collective Fund, are on a basis no less favorable to such Client Plan, than dealings between such Affiliated Fund and other shareholders of the same class of shares in such Affiliated Fund.
(o) In the event a Client Plan invests directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund, and, as applicable, in the event a Client Plan invests indirectly in shares of an Affiliated Fund through a Collective Fund, if such Affiliated Fund places brokerage transactions with Russell Investments, Russell Investments will provide to the Second Fiduciary of each such Client Plan, so invested, at least annually a statement specifying:
(1) The total, expressed in dollars, of brokerage commissions that are paid to Russell Investments by each such Affiliated Fund;
(2) The total, expressed in dollars, of brokerage commissions that are paid by each such Affiliated Fund to brokerage firms unrelated to Russell Investments;
(3) The average brokerage commissions per share, expressed as cents per share, paid to Russell Investments I by each such Affiliated Fund; and
(4) The average brokerage commissions per share, expressed as cents per share, paid by each such Affiliated Fund to brokerage firms unrelated to Russell Investments;
(p)(1) Russell Investments provides to the Second Fiduciary of each Client Plan invested directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund with the disclosures, as set forth below, and at the times set forth below in Section II(p)(1)(i), II(p)(1)(ii), II(p)(1)(iii), II(p)(1)(iv), and II(p)(1)(v), either in writing via first class mail or via personal delivery (or if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery, through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q) as set forth below):
(i) Annually, with a copy of the current summary prospectus for each Affiliated Fund in which such Client Plan invests directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund;
(ii) Upon the request of such Second Fiduciary, a copy of the statement of additional information for each Affiliated Fund in which such Client Plan invests directly in shares of such Affiliated Fund which contains a description of all fees paid by such Affiliated Fund to Russell Investments;
(iii) With regard to any Fee Increase received by Russell Investments pursuant to Section II(k)(2), a copy of the audit report referred to in Section II(k)(2)(v) within sixty (60) days of the completion of such audit report;
(iv) Oral or written responses to the inquiries posed by the Second Fiduciary of such Client Plan, as such inquiries arise; and
(v) Annually, with a Termination form, as described in Section II(j)(1), and instructions on the use of such form, as described in Section II(j)(3), except that if a Termination Form has been provided to such Second Fiduciary, pursuant to Section II(k) or pursuant to Section II(l), then a Termination Form need not be provided again pursuant to this Section II(p)(1)(v) until at least six (6) months but no more than twelve (12) months have elapsed since a Termination Form was provided.
(2) Russell Investments provides to the Second Fiduciary of each Client Plan invested in a Collective Fund, with the disclosures, as set forth below, and at the times set forth below in Section II(p)(2)(i), II(p)(2)(ii), II(p)(2)(iii), II(p)(2)(iv), II(p)(2)(v), II(p)(2)(vi), II(p)(2)(vii), and II(p)(2)(viii), either in writing via first class mail or via personal delivery (or if the Second Fiduciary consents to such means of delivery, through electronic email, in accordance with Section II(q), as set forth below:
(i) Annually, with a copy of the current summary prospectus for each Affiliated Fund in which such Client Plan invests indirectly in shares of such Affiliated Fund through each such Collective Fund;
(ii) Upon the request of such Second Fiduciary, a copy of the statement of additional information for each Affiliated Fund in which such Client Plan invests indirectly in shares of such Affiliated Fund through each such Collective Fund which contains a description of all fees paid by such Affiliated Fund to Russell Investments;
(iii) Annually, with a statement of the Collective Fund-Level Management Fee for investment management, investment advisory or similar services paid to Russell Investments by each such Collective Fund, regardless of whether such Client Plan invests in shares of an Affiliated Fund through such Collective Fund;
(iv) A copy of the annual financial statement of each such Collective Fund in which such Client Plan invests, regardless of whether such Client Plan invests in shares of an Affiliated Fund through such Collective Fund, within sixty (60) days of the completion of such financial statement;
(v) With regard to any Fee Increase received by Russell Investments pursuant to Section II(k)(2), a copy of the audit report referred to in Section II(k)(2)(v) within sixty (60) days of the completion of such audit report;
(vi) Oral or written responses to the inquiries posed by the Second Fiduciary of such Client Plan as such inquiries arise;
(vii) For each Client Plan invested indirectly in shares of an Affiliated Fund through a Collective Fund, a statement of the approximate percentage (which may be in the form of a range) on an annual basis of the assets of such Collective Fund that was invested in Affiliated Funds during the applicable year; and
(viii) Annually, with a Termination Form, as described in Section II(j)(1), and instructions on the use of such form, as described in Section II(j)(3), except that if a Termination Form has been provided to such Second Fiduciary, pursuant to Section II(k) or pursuant to Section II(l), then a Termination Form need not be provided again pursuant to this Section II(p)(2)(viii) until at least six (6) months but no more than twelve (12) months
(q) Any disclosure required herein to be made by Russell Investments to a Second Fiduciary may be delivered by electronic email containing direct hyperlinks to the location of each such document required to be disclosed, which are maintained on a website by Russell Investments, provided:
(1) Russell Investments obtains from such Second Fiduciary prior consent in writing to the receipt by such Second Fiduciary of such disclosure via electronic email;
(2) Such Second Fiduciary has provided to Russell Investments a valid email address; and
(3) The delivery of such electronic email to such Second Fiduciary is provided by Russell Investments in a manner consistent with the relevant provisions of the Department's regulations at 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c) (substituting the word “Russell Investments” for the word “administrator” as set forth therein, and substituting the phrase “Second Fiduciary” for the phrase “the participant, beneficiary or other individual” as set forth therein).
(r) The authorizations described in Sections II(k) or II(l) may be made affirmatively, in writing, by a Second Fiduciary, in a manner that is otherwise consistent with the requirements of those sections.
(s) All of the conditions of PTE 77-4, as amended and/or restated, are met. Notwithstanding this, if PTE 77-4 is amended and/or restated, the requirements of paragraph (e) therein will be deemed to be met with respect to authorizations described in Section II(l) above, but only to the extent the requirements of Section II(l) are met. Similarly, if PTE 77-4 is amended and/or restated, the requirements of paragraph (f) therein will be deemed to be met with respect to authorizations described in Section II(k) above, if the requirements of Section II(k) are met.
(t)
For purposes of this section, Russell Investments acts in the “Best Interest” of the Client Plan when Russell Investments acts with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person would exercise based on the investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, and needs of the plan or IRA, without regard to the financial or other interests of the fiduciary, any affiliate or other party.
(a) Russell Investments maintains for a period of six (6) years the records necessary to enable the persons, described below in Section III(b), to determine whether the conditions of this proposed exemption have been met, except that:
(1) A prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred, if solely because of circumstances beyond the control of Russell Investments, the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period; and
(2) No party in interest other than Russell Investments shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, if the records are not maintained or are not available for examination, as required below by Section III(b).
(b)(1) Except as provided in Section III(b)(2) and notwithstanding any provisions of section 504(a)(2) of the Act, the records referred to in Section III(a) are unconditionally available at their customary location for examination during normal business hours by:
(i) Any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service, or the Securities & Exchange Commission;
(ii) Any fiduciary of a Client Plan invested directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund, any fiduciary of a Client Plan who has the authority to acquire or to dispose of the interest in a Collective Fund in which a Client Plan invests, any fiduciary of a Client Plan invested indirectly in an Affiliated Fund through a Collective Fund where such fiduciary has the authority to acquire or to dispose of the interest in such Collective Fund, and any duly authorized employee or representative of such fiduciary; and
(iii) Any participant or beneficiary of a Client Plan invested directly in shares of an Affiliated Fund or invested in a Collective Fund, and any participant or beneficiary of a Client Plan invested indirectly in shares of an Affiliated Fund through a Collective Fund, and any representative of such participant or beneficiary; and
(2) None of the persons described in Section III(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of Russell Investments, or commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential.
For purposes of this exemption:
(a) The term “Russell Investments” means RIM (f/k/a Russell Investment Management Company), RICap, and any affiliate thereof, as defined below, in Section IV(c).
(b) The term “Client Plan(s)” means a 401(k) plan(s), an individual retirement account(s), other tax-qualified plan(s), and other plan(s) as defined in the Act and Code, but does not include any employee benefit plan sponsored or maintained by Russell Investments, as defined above in Section IV(a).
(c) An “affiliate” of a person includes:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the person;
(2) Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any such person; and
(3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.
(d) The term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.
(e) The term “Affiliated Fund(s)” means Russell Investment Company, a series of mutual funds managed by RIM, and any other diversified open-end investment company or companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act, as amended, established and maintained by Russell Investments now or in the future for
(f) The term “net asset value per share” and the term “NAV” mean the amount for purposes of pricing all purchases and sales of shares of an Affiliated Fund, calculated by dividing the value of all securities, determined by a method as set forth in the summary prospectus for such Affiliated Fund and in the statement of additional information, and other assets belonging to such Affiliated Fund or portfolio of such Affiliated Fund, less the liabilities charged to each such portfolio or each such Affiliated Fund, by the number of outstanding shares.
(g) The term “relative” means a relative as that term is defined in section 3(15) of the Act (or a member of the family as that term is defined in section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or a brother, a sister, or a spouse of a brother or a sister.
(h) The term “Second Fiduciary” means the fiduciary of a Client Plan who is independent of and unrelated to Russell Investments. For purposes of this proposed exemption, the Second Fiduciary will not be deemed to be independent of and unrelated to Russell Investments if:
(1) Such Second Fiduciary, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Russell Investments;
(2) Such Second Fiduciary, or any officer, director, partner, employee, or relative of such Second Fiduciary, is an officer, director, partner, or employee of Russell Investments (or is a relative of such person); or
(3) Such Second Fiduciary, directly or indirectly, receives any compensation or other consideration for his or her personal account in connection with any transaction described in this proposed exemption.
If an officer, director, partner, or employee of Russell Investments (or relative of such person) is a director of such Second Fiduciary, and if he or she abstains from participation in:
(i) The decision of a Client Plan to invest in and to remain invested in shares of an Affiliated Fund directly, the decision of a Client Plan to invest in shares of an Affiliated Fund indirectly through a Collective Fund, and the decision of a Client Plan to invest in a Collective Fund that may in the future invest in shares of an Affiliated Fund;
(ii) Any authorization in accordance with Section II(i), and any authorization, pursuant to negative consent, as described in Section II(k) or in Section II(l); and
(iii) The choice of such Client Plan's investment adviser, then Section IV(h)(2) above shall not apply.
(i) The term “Secondary Service(s)” means a service or services other than an investment management service, investment advisory service, and any similar service which is provided by Russell Investments to an Affiliated Fund, including, but not limited to, custodial, accounting, administrative services, and brokerage services. Russell Investments may also serve as a dividend disbursing agent, shareholder servicing agent, transfer agent, fund accountant, or provider of some other Secondary Service, as defined in this Section IV(i).
(j) The term “Collective Fund(s)” means a separate account of an insurance company, as defined in section 2510.3-101(h)(1)(iii) of the Department's plan assets regulations,
(k) The term “business day” means any day that:
(1) Russell Investments is open for conducting all or substantially all of its business; and
(2) The New York Stock Exchange (or any successor exchange) is open for trading.
(l) The term “Fee Increase(s)” includes any increase by Russell Investments in a rate of a fee previously authorized in writing by the Second Fiduciary of each affected Client Plan pursuant to Section II(i)(2)(i)-(iv) above, and in addition includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Any increase in any fee that results from the addition of a service for which a fee is charged;
(2) Any increase in any fee that results from a decrease in the number of services and any increase in any fee that results from a decrease in the kind of service(s) performed by Russell Investments for such fee over an existing rate of fee for each such service previously authorized by the Second Fiduciary, in accordance with Section II(i)(2)(i)-(iv) above; and
(3) Any increase in any fee that results from Russell Investments changing from one of the fee methods, as described above in Section II(a)(1)-(3), to using another of the fee methods, as described above in Section II(a)(1)-(3).
(m) The term “Plan-Level Management Fee” includes any investment management fee, investment advisory fee, and any similar fee paid by a Client Plan to Russell Investments for any investment management services, investment advisory services, and similar services provided by Russell Investments to such Client Plan at the plan-level. The term “Plan-Level Management Fee” does not include a separate fee paid by a Client Plan to Russell Investments for asset allocation service(s) (Asset Allocation Service(s)), as defined below in Section IV(p), provided by Russell Investments to such Client Plan at the plan-level.
(n) The term “Collective Fund-Level Management Fee” includes any investment management fee, investment advisory fee, and any similar fee paid by a Collective Fund to Russell Investments for any investment management services, investment advisory services, and any similar services provided by Russell Investments to such Collective Fund at the collective fund level.
(o) The term “Affiliated Fund-Level Advisory Fee” includes any investment advisory fee and any similar fee paid by an Affiliated Fund to Russell Investments under the terms of an investment advisory agreement adopted in accordance with section 15 of the Investment Company Act.
(p) The term “Asset Allocation Service(s)” means a service or services to a Client Plan relating to the selection of appropriate asset classes or target-date “glidepath” and the allocation or reallocation (including rebalancing) of the assets of a Client Plan among the selected asset classes. Such services do not include the management of the underlying assets of a Client Plan, the selection of specific funds or manager, and the management of the selected Affiliated Funds or Collective Funds.
(q) The term “Best Interest” means acting with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims, based on the investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, and needs of the plan or IRA, without regard to the financial or other interests of Russell Investments, any affiliate or other party.
Mr. Joseph Brennan of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8456. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing with respect to the notice of proposed exemption, published on June 28, 2017, at 82 FR 29336. All comments and requests for hearing were due by August 14, 2017. During the comment period, the Department received no written comments and no requests for a public hearing.
Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. The complete application file (Application No. L-11867), including all supplemental submissions received by the Department, is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice of Proposed Exemption published on June 28, 2017, at 82 FR 29336.
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), and 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act (or ERISA) shall not apply to the Purchase (the Purchase) by the Training Plan of certain unimproved real property (the Property) from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 8 Building Corporation (the Building Corporation), a party in interest with respect to the Training Plan, provided that the conditions set forth below in Section II are satisfied.
(a) The Purchase is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) The purchase price paid by the Training Plan to the Building Corporation is equal to the fair market value of the Property, as determined by a qualified independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary), based upon an appraisal of the Property (the Appraisal Report) by a qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser) on the date of the Purchase,
(c) The Training Plan trustees, appointed by Local Union No. 8 of the International Union of Electrical Workers (the Union), recuse themselves from all aspects relating to the decision to purchase the Property on behalf of the Training Plan;
(d) With respect to the Purchase, the Independent Fiduciary undertakes the following duties on behalf of the Training Plan:
(1) Determines whether the Purchase is in the interests of, and protective of the Training Plan and the Training Plan participants;
(2) Reviews, negotiates, and approves the terms and conditions of the Purchase;
(3) Reviews and approves the methodology used by the Independent Appraiser in the Appraisal Report to ensure such methodology is consistent with sound principles of valuation, prior to the consummation of the Purchase;
(4) Ensures that the appraisal methodology is properly applied by the Independent Appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Property on the date of the Purchase, and determines whether it is prudent to proceed with such transaction;
(5) Represents the Training Plan's interests for all purposes with respect to the Purchase; and
(6) Not later than 90 days after the Purchase is completed, submits a written statement to the Department demonstrating that the Purchase has satisfied the requirements of Section II(b), above;
(e) The Training Plan does not incur any fees, costs, commissions or other charges as a result of the Purchase, with the exception of the fees reimbursed by the Building Corporation, as set forth in Section II(b), above;
(f) The Purchase is not part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit the Union; and
(g) The terms and conditions of the Purchase are at least as favorable to the Training Plan as those obtainable in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party.
Mr. Joseph Brennan of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8456. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In the Notice of Proposed Exemption published in the
During the comment period, the Department received one comment letter, dated February 10, 2015, and no requests for a public hearing. The comment letter was submitted by EXCO (the Applicant). In the letter, the Applicant requests certain clarifications and corrections to the operative language and the Summary of Facts and Representations (the Summary) of the Notice. The Department concurs with all of the Applicant's clarifications and corrections, which are discussed below.
1.
The Department agrees with this comment and has revised Section II(h) of the operative by substituting the word “regarding” for the second reference to the phrase “with respect to.” Therefore, the revised condition reads as follows: “(h) EXCO did not direct or advise any Invested Participant regarding such Invested Participant's election with respect to the Rights.”
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To ensure that the Rights Offering was in the interests of the Plan, the Applicant has agreed to contribute $6,359.87 to the Plan on behalf of three Invested Participants who exercised their rights to purchase shares of EXCO Common Stock in connection with the Rights Offering. The Invested Participants collectively exercised a total of 9,952 Rights to acquire a total of 2,970 shares of EXCO Common Stock at a subscription price of $5.00 per share. The Invested Participants subsequently sold their acquired shares of the EXCO Common Stock and sustained investment losses. To make the Invested Participants “whole,” as if they had sold their Rights during the Rights Offering and had not incurred any loss on such sale, EXCO will contribute, within 30 days of the granting of this exemption, a total of $6,359.87 to the Plan. The Make Whole Payment will be equal to: (1) The amount of the investment loss incurred by the Invested Participant on the sale of EXCO Common Stock acquired, plus (2) the amount the Invested Participant would have received had their Rights been sold during the Rights Offering.
Accordingly, after full consideration and review of the entire record, including the comment letter filed by the Applicant, the Department has determined to grant the exemption, as set forth above. The Applicant's comment letter has been included as part of the public record of the exemption application. The complete application file (D-11821) is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption refer to the Notice published on November 26, 2014, at 79 FR 78489.
Effective for the period beginning December 17, 2013, and ending on January 9, 2014, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), 406(b)(1), 406(b)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(E) of the Code,
(a) To the acquisition of certain transferable subscription right(s) (the Right or Rights) by the individually-directed account(s) (the Account or Accounts) of certain participant(s), (the Invested Participant(s)) in the Plan, in connection with an offering (the Offering) of shares of the common stock (the Common Stock) of EXCO Resources, Inc. (EXCO) by EXCO, the plan sponsor (the Plan Sponsor) and a party in interest with respect to the Plan; and
(b) To the holding of the Rights received by the Accounts during the subscription period of the Offering; provided that the conditions set forth in Section II of this exemption were satisfied for the duration of the acquisition and holding of such Rights.
(a) The acquisition of the Rights by the Accounts of the Invested Participants occurred in connection with the Offering, and the Rights were made available by EXCO on the same material terms to all shareholders of record of the Common Stock of EXCO, including the Accounts of Invested Participants;
(b) The acquisition of the Rights by the Accounts of Invested Participants resulted from an independent corporate act of EXCO;
(c) Each shareholder of the Common Stock of EXCO, including each of the Accounts of Invested Participants, received the same proportionate number of Rights, and this proportionate number of Rights was based on the number of shares of Common Stock held by each such shareholder, as of 5:00 p.m. New York City time, on December 19, 2013 (the Record Date);
(d) The Rights were acquired pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions under the Plan for individually-directed investment of the Accounts by the Invested Participants, all of whose Accounts in the Plan held the Common Stock;
(e) The decision with regard to the holding and the disposition of the Rights by an Account was made by the Invested Participant whose Account received the Rights;
(f) If any of the Invested Participants failed to give instructions as to the exercise of the Rights received in the Offering, or gave instructions to the Plan trustee to sell the Rights, such Rights were automatically sold in blind transactions on the New York Stock Exchange and the proceeds from such sales were distributed
(g) No brokerage fees, no commissions, no subscription fees, and no other charges were paid by the Plan or by the Accounts of Invested Participants with respect to the acquisition and holding of the Rights, and no commissions, no fees, and no expenses were paid by the Plan or by the Accounts of Invested Participants to any related broker in connection with the sale or exercise of any of the Rights, or with regard to the acquisition of the Common Stock through the exercise of such Rights;
(h) EXCO did not direct or advise any Invested Participant regarding such Invested Participant's election with respect to the Rights;
(i) The terms of the Offering were described to the Invested Participants in clearly written communications, including, but not limited to, the prospectus for the Rights Offering; and
(j) Within 30 days of the granting of the exemption, EXCO contributes a make whole payment (the Make Whole Payment) to the Plan totaling $6,359.87 on behalf of three Invested Participants who exercised their rights to purchase EXCO Common Stock in connection with the Rights Offering but sustained losses in connection with the sale of their shares of EXCO Common Stock. The Make Whole Payment will be equal to:
(1) The amount of the investment loss incurred by the Invested Participants on the sale of EXCO Common Stock acquired, plus
(2) The amount the Invested Participants would have received had their Rights been sold during the Rights Offering.
Mr. Joseph Brennan of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8456. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In the notice of proposed exemption (the Notice), the Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing within 40 days of the publication, on June 28, 2017, of the Notice in the
Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. The complete application file (Exemption Application No. D-11895), including all supplemental submissions received by the Department, is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice published in the
The restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Code,
(a) The Sale of the LLC Interest is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) The Sale price for the LLC Interest is the greater of: $518,400; or the fair market value of the LLC Interest as determined by a qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser) in an updated appraisal on the date of the Sale. The updated appraisal must be submitted to the Department within 30 days of the Sale and will be included as part of the record developed under D-11895;
(c) The terms and conditions of the Sale are no less favorable to the Plan than the terms the Plan would receive under similar circumstances in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated third party; and
(d) The Plan pays no commissions, fees, or other costs or expenses associated with the Sale, including the fees of the Independent Appraiser and the costs of obtaining the exemption.
Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) These exemptions are supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of these exemptions is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
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 |