| Page Range | 15491-15725 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 15502 - Universal Service | |
| 83 FR 15499 - Safety and Health Regulations for Construction | |
| 83 FR 15503 - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) | |
| 83 FR 15561 - Safer Choice Partner & Stakeholder Summit 2018; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15528 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 83 FR 15562 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1049.14 | |
| 83 FR 15627 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International Standards | |
| 83 FR 15568 - Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15560 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Data Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs | |
| 83 FR 15538 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reclassifying Squid Species in the BSAI and GOA | |
| 83 FR 15531 - Streamlined Reauthorization Procedures for Assigned or Transferred Television Satellite Stations; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative | |
| 83 FR 15668 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Application for Conveyance of Port Facility Property | |
| 83 FR 15669 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SPELLBOUND; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15669 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SERENITY; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15673 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel R and R; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15671 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FUNSEEKER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15672 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FEARLESS; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15670 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ENVOLEE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15674 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel DESPERADO; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15674 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CHILLIN'; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15670 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CAPT EASY; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15671 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ANNE BONNY; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15673 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ABLE ONE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 15587 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15560 - Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date; Illinois Power Resources Generating, LLC | |
| 83 FR 15559 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Enbridge-Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. Tx-La Markets Project | |
| 83 FR 15560 - Notice of Petition for Waiver; Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC | |
| 83 FR 15706 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Fourth Quarter of Calendar Year 2017; Notice | |
| 83 FR 15514 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notification of Intent To Establish a Working Group for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Test Procedures and Energy Conservation Standards | |
| 83 FR 15593 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Restrictions on Assistance to Noncitizens | |
| 83 FR 15592 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Multifamily Energy Assessment | |
| 83 FR 15568 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 83 FR 15600 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Application for Land for Recreation or Public Purposes | |
| 83 FR 15598 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Color-of-Title Application | |
| 83 FR 15524 - Addition to the National Network | |
| 83 FR 15587 - Notice of Meeting for the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC)-Correction | |
| 83 FR 15666 - Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance, Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, WA | |
| 83 FR 15598 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan | |
| 83 FR 15555 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15557 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15553 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15552 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15555 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15552 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15554 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15535 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 15556 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Cook Inlet | |
| 83 FR 15601 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Bureau of Land Management Resource Advisory Council Application | |
| 83 FR 15599 - Call for Nominations for the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 15550 - Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program 2018 Industry Forums-Open Teleconference and/or Web Conference Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15664 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice | |
| 83 FR 15646 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 15635 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Requests Submitted for Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 15502 - Department of the Treasury Acquisition Regulations; Tax Check Requirements | |
| 83 FR 15664 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Security Interest | |
| 83 FR 15644 - Information Collection: Voluntary Reporting of Planned New Reactor Applications | |
| 83 FR 15633 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration | |
| 83 FR 15630 - Witold Marek Zajewski, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 83 FR 15559 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing | |
| 83 FR 15627 - Certain Light Engines and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based Upon a Consent Order Stipulation; Issuance of Consent Order | |
| 83 FR 15499 - Safety Zone; Ohio River, Cincinnati, OH | |
| 83 FR 15645 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 15601 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 15634 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) | |
| 83 FR 15702 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 15597 - U.S. Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Application | |
| 83 FR 15602 - Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf in the New York Bight-Call for Information and Nominations | |
| 83 FR 15633 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration | |
| 83 FR 15678 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15627 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Lipomed | |
| 83 FR 15634 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Almac Clinical Services Incorp (ACSI) | |
| 83 FR 15577 - Oxford Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 18 Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 83 FR 15588 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 15576 - Advisory Committee; Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, Renewal | |
| 83 FR 15593 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 15517 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 15591 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Signal Hill, CA) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 83 FR 15590 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Carteret, NJ) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 83 FR 15648 - Application; Benefit Street Partners BDC, Inc., et al. | |
| 83 FR 15590 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Jacksonville, FL), as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 83 FR 15702 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 15578 - Request for Nominations for Individuals and Consumer Organizations for Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 15665 - Public Hearing | |
| 83 FR 15664 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 83 FR 15666 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 83 FR 15676 - AGC Glass Company North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 83 FR 15675 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements | |
| 83 FR 15639 - Shipyard Employment Standards; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 83 FR 15569 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 15576 - Preparation for International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation Twelfth Annual Meeting; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15586 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15585 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15519 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney | |
| 83 FR 15626 - Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II); Commission Determination To Modify the Remedial Orders To Suspend Enforcement as to U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 | |
| 83 FR 15572 - Medicare Program; Reconciling National Coverage Determinations on Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Neuroimaging for Dementia | |
| 83 FR 15655 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Rebates Provided to Members That Send Unsolicited Crossing Orders to the Exchange | |
| 83 FR 15653 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Delay of Complex Order Quoting Functionality | |
| 83 FR 15659 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF and ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF | |
| 83 FR 15662 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees To Clarify the Fees and Rebates for the Complex Order Exposure Auction Pursuant to Rule 722(b)(3)(iii) | |
| 83 FR 15647 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 15646 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated; Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 15647 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 15647 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 15647 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 15583 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15586 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15584 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15584 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15584 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15585 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15583 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15585 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 15586 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 15503 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2018 to 2020 | |
| 83 FR 15563 - April and May Meetings of the North American Numbering Council | |
| 83 FR 15550 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors | |
| 83 FR 15521 - Proposed Establishment of the Hawaiian Islands High and the Hawaiian Islands Low Offshore Airspace Areas; Hawaii. | |
| 83 FR 15551 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Kansas Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 15667 - List of Units of the National Park System Exempt From the Provisions of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act | |
| 83 FR 15498 - Extension of Port Limits of Savannah, GA | |
| 83 FR 15551 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 83 FR 15618 - Atlantic Wind Lease Sale 4A (ATLW-4A) Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Massachusetts-Proposed Sale Notice | |
| 83 FR 15641 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Native Hawaiian Library Program Notice of Funding Opportunity | |
| 83 FR 15643 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Native American Basic Library Program Notice of Funding Opportunity | |
| 83 FR 15642 - Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, Proposed Collection: 2019-2021 IMLS Peer Reviewer Nomination Forms | |
| 83 FR 15581 - E11(R1) Addendum: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 15511 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Omnibus Acceptable Biological Catch Framework Adjustment | |
| 83 FR 15571 - Information Collection; Transportation Requirements | |
| 83 FR 15571 - Information Collection; Delivery Schedules | |
| 83 FR 15531 - Encouraging the Provision of New Technologies and Services to the Public; Correction | |
| 83 FR 15565 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 15564 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 15566 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 15557 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 15658 - Order Regarding Review of FASB Accounting Support Fee for 2018 Under Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 | |
| 83 FR 15495 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 15491 - Rinderpest; Update of Communicable Animal Disease Provisions | |
| 83 FR 15526 - Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Amendment to the Administrative Consent Order, Grain Processing Corporation, Muscatine, Iowa; Proposal |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Housing Service
Economic Development Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations concerning communicable diseases of livestock and poultry, interstate transportation and importation of animals (including poultry) and animal products, and permits for biological products to remove references to the animal disease rinderpest. This action reflects recognition by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that rinderpest has been eradicated worldwide, and removes restrictions that are no longer necessary due to eradication of the disease. This action better aligns our regulations with World Organization for Animal Health guidelines for international trade as they pertain to rinderpest.
Effective April 11, 2018.
Dr. Ingrid Kotowski, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7732; email:
The regulations in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapters B through E (referred to below as the regulations) govern, among other things, cooperative control and eradication of livestock and poultry diseases, importation and interstate transportation of animals (including poultry) and animal products, and permits for biological products. Rinderpest, a communicable animal disease, is referenced in various places throughout the regulations. Because rinderpest has been eradicated worldwide, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is removing references to rinderpest where they occur in the regulations, except for regulations pertaining to select agents and toxins. This action will remove restrictions that are no longer necessary due to eradication of the disease, and will better align APHIS regulations with World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines for international trade as they pertain to rinderpest. This rule does not change the regulations or requirements associated with other animal diseases, nor does it make any substantive changes to the regulations.
Part 53 of the regulations pertains to State and Federal cooperative control of certain communicable diseases of livestock or poultry. This rule will remove the word “rinderpest” from the title of part 53, and amends the definition of
Subchapter D (parts 91 through 99), which pertains to the exportation and importation of animals (including poultry) and animal products, contains the majority of references to rinderpest that this rule will remove. In part 93, references to rinderpest will be removed from §§ 93.404, 93.405, 93.504, and 93.505, which specify requirements for import permits and health certificates. Part 94, which concerns prohibited and restricted importations, will be amended to remove the word “rinderpest” from its title, as well as from §§ 94.1 through 94.4, 94.11, 94.16, and 94.17. Part 95 pertains to sanitary control of animal byproducts (except casings), and hay and straw, offered for entry into the United States. This rule amends the definition of
In part 98, which concerns the importation of certain animal embryos and animal semen, references to rinderpest will be removed from regulations in §§ 98.3, 98.12, 98.13, 98.15, 98.16, and 98.34, as well as from the titles of subparts A and B. We note that, consistent with the removal of rinderpest-related references from APHIS animal import regulations, APHIS will no longer display its web-based list of regions that APHIS has declared free from rinderpest.
Finally, part 104 of the regulations specifies requirements for permits for biological products. In § 104.2, we are removing the reference to rinderpest from a list of exotic diseases that, when present in a country, precludes the issuance of permits for biological products from that country. We are making an additional nonsubstantive change to correct a typographical error in § 104.2(b) by adding a comma and space between the words “influenza” and “swine” in that section.
We are updating the authority citations for part 91 and part 94 in this document to reflect U.S. Code citations that have been repealed or redesignated. In the authority citation for part 91, 46 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902 will be removed; in the authority citation for part 94, 7 U.S.C. 450 will be redesignated as 7 U.S.C. 1633.
This rule relates to internal agency management and makes various nonsubstantive changes to the regulations in 9 CFR to reflect the worldwide eradication of the animal disease rinderpest. Because the changes contained in this rule are nonsubstantive in nature, notice and other public procedure on this rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This final rule contains no new reporting, recordkeeping, or third party disclosure requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Indemnity payments, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products.
Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal feeds, Hay, Imports, Livestock, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Straw, Transportation.
Animal diseases, Imports.
Animal biologics, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 53, 71, 91, 93, 94, 95, 98, and 104 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 19 U.S.C. 1644a(c); 21 U.S.C. 136, 136a, and 618; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) APHIS considers foot-and-mouth disease to exist in all regions of the world except those declared free of the disease by APHIS.
(2) APHIS will add a region to the list of those it has declared free of foot-and-mouth disease after it conducts an evaluation of the region in accordance with § 92.2 of this subchapter and finds that the disease is not present. In the case of a region formerly on this list that is removed due to an outbreak, the region may be returned to the list in accordance with the procedures for reestablishment of a region's disease-free status in § 92.4 of this subchapter. APHIS will remove a region from the list of those it has declared free of foot-and-mouth disease upon determining that the disease exists in the region based on reports APHIS receives of outbreaks of the disease from veterinary officials of the exporting country, from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), or from other sources the Administrator determines to be reliable.
The revision reads as follows:
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) The regions listed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section have been declared free of foot-and-mouth disease by APHIS as provided in § 94.1(a) but supplement their national meat supply by the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or swine from regions that APHIS considers to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease as provided in § 94.1(a); or have a common land border with regions considered to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease; or import ruminants or swine from regions considered to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease under conditions less restrictive than would be acceptable for importation into the United States. Thus, the meat may be commingled with the fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of animals from an affected region, resulting in an undue risk of introducing foot-and-mouth disease into the United States.
The revisions read as follows:
(m) * * *
(1) The ham, if it is an Italian-type ham processed in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, was processed in a region which has submitted, through its veterinary services, to the Administrator, a written statement stating that it conducts a program to authorize persons to supervise activities specified under this section;
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The importation of any animal byproduct taken or removed from an animal affected with anthrax, foot-and-mouth disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza, or Newcastle disease is prohibited.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) Wool, hair, or bristles taken from sheep, goats, cattle, or swine, when such animals have been slaughtered under national government inspection in a region
The revision reads as follows:
(c) Glue stock taken from cattle, sheep, goats, or swine slaughtered under national government inspection in a region
7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The donor animal shall have been inspected on the farm of origin or on another premises (the inspection may be on another premises only if a veterinarian of the Department has traced the donor animal back to its farm of origin) by a veterinarian of the United States Department of Agriculture who, in cooperation with the veterinary service of the region of origin of the donor animal, shall have determined, insofar as possible, that the donor animal was never infected with foot-and-mouth disease; that the donor animal was never on a farm or other premises where foot-and-mouth disease then existed; that the donor animal has not been on a premises that had an animal that was susceptible to the virus of foot-and-mouth disease and that was exposed to the disease during the 12 months immediately prior to the date of inspection of the donor animal; that the donor animal, if a swine, has never been vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease; and that the donor animal was free from evidence of other communicable disease;
21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(b) A permit shall not be issued for a biological product from countries known to have exotic diseases, including but not limited to foot-and-mouth disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza, swine vesicular disease, Newcastle disease, and African swine fever, if in the opinion of the Administrator, such products may endanger the livestock or poultry of this country.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109E, A109K2, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. This AD reduces the life limit of and requires inspecting a tail rotor blade retention bolt (bolt). This AD is prompted by the discovery of a cracked bolt. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective April 26, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 26, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 11, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Emergency AD No. 2016-0173-E, dated August 24, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (formerly Agusta) Model A109E, A109K2, A109LUH, A109S, A119, AW109SP, and AW119MKII helicopters. EASA advises of a crack found in a bolt, part number (P/N) 709-0160-57-101, during a pre-flight inspection of a Model A109E helicopter. This part-numbered bolt is also installed on Model A109K2, A109LUH, A109S, A119, AW109SP, and AW119MKII helicopters. Subsequent investigation did not identify the cause of the crack. EASA advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the tail rotor, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter. As a precautionary measure pending the completion of the investigation and to address the unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires reducing the life limit of and repetitively inspecting the bolts. The EASA AD is considered an interim action and further AD action may follow.
Accordingly, this AD requires reducing the life limit of bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 to 800 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 3,200 landings, depending on the model helicopter on which the bolt is installed. This AD also requires, within 25 hours TIS, inspecting each bolt for a crack using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, both before and after cleaning and degreasing the bolts. Additional inspections of the bolts at longer intervals may also be necessary. We plan to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an opportunity to comment on those long-term requirements.
The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Leonardo Helicopters on its FAA type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
Leonardo Helicopters has issued Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109EP-149 for Model A109E helicopters, Mandatory BT No. 109K-72 for Model A109K2 helicopters, Mandatory BT No. 109S-072 for Model A109S helicopters, Mandatory BT No. 109SP-105 for Model AW109SP helicopters, and Mandatory BT No. 119-080 for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters, all dated August 19, 2016. This service information specifies reducing the life limit of bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 and repetitively inspecting the bolts for cracks.
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
This AD requires, before further flight, removing from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has reached or exceeded its new life limit. Thereafter, this AD requires removing from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 before it reaches its new life limit.
This AD also requires, within 25 hours time-in-service, inspecting each bolt for a crack using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, both before and after cleaning and degreasing the bolts, and replacing a cracked bolt before further flight.
The EASA AD applies to Model A109LUH helicopters. This AD does not because the Model A109LUH does not have an FAA type certificate. The EASA AD does not specify life limits for bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has been interchanged between model helicopter installations, while this AD does. The EASA AD requires repeating the visual inspection every 200 hours, while this AD does not, as this time interval would allow for sufficient time for notice and comment.
We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this AD affects 234 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Removing a bolt that has reached its new life limit will take about 2 work-hours for a cost of $170 per bolt. Inspecting the bolts will take about 4 work-hours for an estimated cost of $340 per helicopter and $79,560 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing a bolt will take negligible additional labor time and parts will cost about $500.
According to Leonardo Helicopter's service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Leonardo Helicopter. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because some of the required corrective actions must be completed before further flight. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable.
In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
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
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model A109E, A109K2, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor blade retention bolt (bolt) part number (P/N) 709-0160-57-101 installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a bolt. This condition could result in failure of the tail rotor and loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective April 26, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight:
(i) For Model A109E and A109K2 helicopters, remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has 800 or more hours time-in-service (TIS). If the hours TIS is unknown, remove the bolt from service. Thereafter, remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 before accumulating 800 hours TIS.
(ii) For Model A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters, remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has 3,200 or more landings. If the number of landings is unknown, remove the bolt from service. Thereafter, remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 before accumulating 3,200 landings. For purposes of this AD, a landing is counted anytime a helicopter lifts off into the air and then lands again regardless of the duration of the landing and regardless of whether the engine is shutdown.
(iii) Remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has been interchanged between different model helicopters listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this AD that has 800 or more hours TIS or 3,200 or more landings. If the hours TIS or number of landings is unknown, remove the bolt from service. Thereafter, remove from service any bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101 that has been interchanged between different model helicopters listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this AD before accumulating 800 hours TIS or 3,200 landings, whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 25 hours TIS, remove each bolt P/N 709-0160-57-101. Prior to cleaning, using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, visually inspect the bolt for a crack in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico Nos. 109EP-149, 109K-72, 109S-072, 109SP-105, or 119-080, all dated August 19, 2016 (BT Nos. 109EP-149, 109K-72, 109S-072, 109SP-105, or 119-080), as applicable to your model helicopter.
(i) If there is a crack, replace the bolt before further flight.
(ii) If there are no cracks, clean and degrease the inspection area of the bolt with solvent, and using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, visually inspect the bolt for a crack in the area depicted in Figure 1 of BT Nos. 109EP-149, 109K-72, 109S-072, 109SP-105, or 119-080, as applicable to your model helicopter. If there is a crack, replace the bolt before further flight.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2016-0173-E, dated August 24, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6500, Tail Rotor Drive System.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 109EP-149, dated August 19, 2016.
(ii) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 109K-72, dated August 19, 2016.
(iii) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 109S-072, dated August 19, 2016.
(iv) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 109SP-105, dated August 19, 2016.
(v) Leonardo Helicopters Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 119-080, dated August 19, 2016.
(3) For Leonardo Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This document adopts as a final rule, with changes, proposed amendments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations pertaining to the expansion of the geographical limits of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia. The port limits will be expanded to make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public and to allow for uniform and continuous service to the extended area of Savannah, Georgia. This change is part of CBP's continuing program to use its personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public.
Roger Kaplan, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 325-4543, or by email at
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
As explained in the NPRM, Savannah, Georgia was designated as a customs port of entry by the President's message of March 3, 1913, concerning the reorganization of the U.S. Customs Service pursuant to the Act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 434; 19 U.S.C. 1). Executive Order 8367, dated March 5, 1940, established specific geographical boundaries for the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia.
In the July 2017 NPRM, CBP proposed to amend the geographical limits of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia because the current boundaries established by the Executive Order do not include a large portion of Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport, including the site of a proposed replacement Federal Inspection Service facility for arriving international travelers, or distribution centers and cold storage agricultural facilities that support the seaport. Also, most of the projected facilities, such as a new ship terminal with two berths for container ships and bonded warehouses, which will be built on the region's remaining undeveloped properties will be outside of the boundaries of the current port of entry. CBP determined that the extension of the boundaries would not result in a change in the service that is provided to the public by the port and would not require a change in the staffing or workload at the port. For the proposed rule, CBP posted on the docket on
The NPRM solicited public comment on the proposed rulemaking. The public comment period closed on September 1, 2017.
One commenter responded to the solicitation of comments to the proposed rule. A description of the comment received, together with CBP's analysis, is set forth below.
The commenter fully supported the expansion of the port limits, but was concerned that the proposed limits did not take into consideration the warehouses and distribution centers being built to accommodate the current volume of trade. The commenter suggested that the western portion of the boundary line be extended to the county line (west of Interstate Highway 95) to support the future growth of the area, provide jobs and further solidify Savannah's position in international trade.
CBP agrees with the commenter's suggestion to extend the western portion of the boundary line as the purpose of expanding the port of entry of Savannah is to provide better services to the carriers, importers and the general public. In addition, CBP has become aware that import facilities are just outside of Chatham County. Thus, CBP is extending the western boundary slightly into Effingham County to include those facilities. The further extension of the port would not require a change in staffing or workload at the port.
After review of the comment, CBP has determined to further expand the boundaries of the Savannah port of entry in this final rule. Instead of the western boundaries being along the Federal Interstate Highway 95, they begin where Highway 204 (Fort Argyle Road) intersects with Federal Interstate Highway 95, then proceed north to the intersection with Old River Road, then north along Old River Road until it intersects with Federal Interstate Highway 16, then east along Federal Interstate Highway 16 until it meets the Chatham County line, and then north along the Chatham County line until it meets the intersection with Federal Interstate Highway 95 and the Georgia-South Carolina state line. The new port limits are described below, and the map posted on the docket on
The final port limits of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia, are as follows: From 32°14.588′ N-081° 08.455′ W (where Federal Interstate Highway 95 crosses the Georgia-South Carolina state line) and extending in a straight line to 32°04.903′ N-080°54.998′ W (where Walls Cut meets Wright River and Turtle Island); then proceeding in a straight line to 31°52.651′ N-081°03.331′ W (where Adams Creek meets Green Island Sound); then proceeding northwest in a straight line to 32°00.280′ N-081°17.00′ W (where Highway 204 intersects Federal Interstate Highway 95); then proceeding northwest along Fort Argyle Road (Highway 204) to the intersection with Old River Road; then proceeding north on Old River Road to the intersection with Federal Interstate Highway 16; then proceeding southeast along Federal Interstate Highway 16 to the Chatham County line; then proceeding northeast and then east along the length of the Chatham County line until it intersects with Federal Interstate Highway 95 at Knoxboro
This change is made under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6 U.S.C. 101,
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
The final rule expands the geographical boundaries of the Savannah, Georgia, port of entry, and makes the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public. There are no new costs to the public associated with this rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule merely expands the limits of an existing port of entry and does not impose any new costs on the public. Accordingly, we certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) because the extension of port limits is not within the bounds of those regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole authority. Accordingly, this final rule may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or her delegate).
Customs ports of entry, Harbors, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Seals and insignia, Vessels.
For the reasons set forth above, part 101, CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 101), is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 101,
Section 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 490.0 to MM 491.5. This safety zone is necessary to
This rule is effective from April 12, 2018 through April 22, 2018 during daylight hours only, or until the operation is complete, whichever occurs first.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Joshua Herriott, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-5343, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this regulation by April 12, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Miami Fort Static Wire Crossing operation, occurring from April 12, 2018 through April 22, 2018, will be a safety concern for all navigable waters on the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 490.0 to MM 491.5. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the event.
This rule establishes a safety zone during daylight hours each day from April 12, 2018 through April 22, 2018 for all navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, from MM 490.0 to MM 491.5. Transit into and through this area is prohibited during periods of enforcement between April 12, 2018 through April 22, 2018. The periods of enforcement will be prior to, during, and 30 minutes after any vessel movement and wire transfer operations at Miami Fort. The Coast Guard was informed that the operations would take place during daylight hours only. A safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement periods. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notices to Mariners (LNM), or through other means of public notice at least 1 hour in advance of each enforcement period.
The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of Sector Ohio Valley. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will be in place on a one and a half mile stretch of the Ohio River during daytime hours only for eleven days. The Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the temporary safety zone. This rule also allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that prohibits entry on a one and a half mile stretch of the Ohio River during daytime hours only for eleven days. It is 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 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
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative.
(e)
Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This rule finalizes without change an interim rule that amended the Department of the Treasury Acquisition Regulation (DTAR) by adding a subpart titled “Responsible Prospective Contractor” and a paragraph concerning Representation and certifications regarding responsibility matters, for the purpose of directing IRS contracting officers to the newly added DTAR subpart titled “Tax Check Requirement,” which prescribes the policies and procedures for performing a tax check on the apparent successful offeror in order to determine eligibility to receive an award.
Effective date: May 11, 2018.
Thomas O'Linn, Procurement Analyst, Office of the Procurement Executive, at (202) 622-2092.
The DTAR, which supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), is codified at 48 CFR Chapter 10.
It is in the interest of the United States Government to only award contracts to entities that are responsible and law abiding. This is codified in FAR 9.104 by requiring contracting officers to perform a responsibility determination prior to each contract award by using the standards at FAR 9.104-1, as well as consider information submitted by the contractor and information they research or acquire from other sources. The IRS administers the Internal Revenue Code as enacted by Congress. Since fiscal year 2012, language in the annual consolidated Appropriations Act has prohibited the Federal Government under various conditions from using appropriated funds to enter into a contract with a prospective contractor unless the prospective contractor certifies in writing that it has not been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment. Most recently, Sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) prohibits the Federal Government from entering into a contract with any corporation where the awarding agency is aware of an unpaid Federal tax liability.
For purposes of tax administration, the IRS has access to taxpayer return information that is not otherwise available to other Federal Agencies pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6103(h)(1). The Department of the Treasury has determined that an IRS contractor's compliance with the tax laws is a tax administration matter. Additionally, 26 U.S.C. 6103(c) authorizes the IRS to disclose a taxpayer's return information to such person(s) as the taxpayer may designate in a consent to such disclosure. In many cases, however, the official signing a contract proposal on behalf of an offeror will not be an official to whom the IRS is authorized to disclose the offeror's tax information. Thus, in order to ensure that IRS is authorized to discuss the offeror's own tax information with an authorized official of the offeror, a consent to disclosure is required. This consent to disclosure must be in the form of a separate written document pertaining solely to the authorized disclosure and must be signed and dated by an authorized person as required and defined in 26 U.S.C. 6103(c) and 26 CFR 301.6103(c)-1(e)(4).
On November 16, 2017 (82 FR 53426), the Department issued an interim rule to amend the DTAR to establish policies and procedures that facilitate successful, timely, and economical execution of IRS contractual actions in compliance with the FAR and various appropriation restrictions. Specifically, the interim rule established an express requirement for IRS contracting officers to use taxpayer return information that is available only to IRS to perform a tax check on the apparent successful offeror for purposes of determining eligibility to enter into a contract with the IRS. The IRS has established an internal Procedure, Guidance and Information (PGI) that further supplements the DTAR requirement for IRS contracting officers to use when conducting a tax check. To ensure compliance with 26 U.S.C. 6103(h)(1) and to safeguard taxpayer return information, the PGI restricts the number of personnel within the IRS Office of Procurement who have access to tax compliance information. The PGI also limits the amount of information provided to the contracting officer regarding a delinquent Federal tax liability. Upon notification by the contracting officer that the offeror has a delinquent Federal tax liability, the offeror may provide the contracting officer with documentation that demonstrates the offeror's tax status as paid-in-full or that an approved payment agreement has been reached, at which time the contracting officer will coordinate with the appropriate office within IRS to validate the offeror's tax status (see FAR 9.104-5(a)(1), (b)(1) and (e)).
The offeror may want to take steps to confirm it does not have a delinquent Federal tax liability prior to submission of its response to the solicitation. If the offeror recently settled a delinquent Federal tax liability, the offeror may want to take steps to obtain information in order to demonstrate the offeror's responsibility to the contracting officer, if such information is requested (see FAR 9.104-5(a)(1) and (b)(1)).
The interim rule supplemented paragraph (b) of FAR 9.104-5, Representation and certifications regarding responsibility matters, for the purpose of directing IRS contracting officers to the newly added DTAR subpart 1009.70, which prescribes the policies and procedures for performing a tax check on the apparent successful offeror to determine eligibility to receive an award.
The interim rule added DTAR subparts 1009.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, and 1009.70, Tax Check Requirements. This latter subpart prescribes the policies and procedures IRS contracting officers will use for performing a tax check on the apparent successful offeror to determine eligibility to receive an award. Definitions of terms “authorized representative(s) of the offeror,”
The interim rule added a provision to be inserted in all IRS solicitations regardless of dollar value, including those for commercial items. The provision will notify offerors that the IRS will conduct a tax check because the Department of the Treasury has determined that an IRS contractor's compliance with the tax laws is a tax administration matter, and that taxpayer return information is needed for determining an offeror's eligibility to receive an award, including but not limited to implementation of the statutory prohibition of making an award to corporations that have a unpaid Federal tax liability (see FAR 9.104-5(b)). The provision also contains a consent to disclosure to be signed and dated by a person authorized to act on behalf of the offeror as defined in 26 CFR 301.6103(c)-1(e)(4). The consent to disclosure authorizes the officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury, including the IRS, to disclose the results of the tax check to the person(s) authorized by the offeror via the signed consent to disclosure.
Under the interim rule, this provision applies to all IRS solicitations regardless of the dollar value, including commercial items (including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf items). This determination is consistent with the FAR requirements regarding the inclusion of the provisions 52.209-5, 52.209-11 and 52.212-3 as well as various appropriation restrictions.
The comment period for the interim rule closed on January 16, 2018. Treasury received twenty-seven comments and twenty-six of those were outside of the scope of the regulation. The one comment within the scope supported the rule. The commenter noted that the rule will improve the contracting system by making the award process fairer and more efficient. Accordingly, the interim rule is adopted in this final rule without change.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) generally requires agencies to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and a final regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
It is hereby certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this final rule, the Department is adopting an interim rule without change. The interim rule amended the DTAR to establish an internal process that strengthens IRS' compliance with appropriation act restrictions and the FAR prohibition of entering into a contract with contractors having a delinquent Federal tax liability (see FAR subpart 9.1) and should not have significant economic impacts on small entities other than the potential for not receiving award if the small entity has a delinquent Federal tax liability. This rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
Government procurement.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the interim rule published on November 16, 2017 (FR Doc. 2017-24911) is adopted as final without change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is issuing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement Resolution C-17-02 (
This rule is effective May 11, 2018, except for the amendments to 50 CFR 300.24(qq) and 300.28(e), which are effective on January 1, 2019.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment, revised Regulatory Impact Review, and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS at 562-980-4036.
On November 14, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
The final rule is implemented under the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951
As specified under Resolution C-17-02, the final rule continues to apply three regulations for the U.S. fleet that were in effect in 2017, revises several regulations for both purse seine and longline vessels, adds a description of the process for transferring longline bigeye tuna catch limits between countries, and imposes new restrictions on fish aggregating device (FAD) deployment and removal, reporting, and design standards. Because the preamble of the proposed rule contained detailed information on the maintained and revised measures, this final rule will briefly summarize these measures and include more detail on the new measures.
The final rule continues to apply the regulations effective in previous years, including 2017, for purse seine vessels of class sizes 4-6 (carrying capacity greater than 182 metric tons (mt)) fishing for tropical tuna in the EPO. This includes a 72-day EPO-wide fishing closure period, a time/area closure in the EPO for 31 days, and a requirement that all tropical tuna be retained on board and landed, except fish considered unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size. The final rule continues to allow a single exception on the final set of a trip, when there may be insufficient space remaining to accommodate all the tuna caught in that set.
The final rule also increases the catch limit from 500 mt to 750 mt for bigeye tuna caught in the EPO by U.S. longline vessels greater than 24 meters (m).
The final rule narrows the definition of force majeure and adjusts the number of days a purse seine vessel would need to observe the 72-day closure period, if granted a force majeure exemption, from 30 days to 40 days. The final rule allows the reduced closure period to be observed in the year the force majeure event occurred, or if the vessel already observed a 72-day closure period in the year the event occurred, in the following year. The final rule requires all size class 4-6 purse seine vessels granted an exemption due to force majeure to carry an observer.
NMFS is also adding a procedural requirement in the final rule to the regulations governing exemptions due to force majeure. Currently, the regulations do not have a required deadline for vessel owners or operators to submit information to NMFS for force majeure exemption requests. The final rule requires U.S. vessel owners or operators requesting an exemption due to force majeure to send the request to NMFS within 20 calendar days after the vessel has been unable to proceed to sea for the same amount of days as the closure period (
In addition, the final rule removes two regulations that were in effect in 2017: (1) The exception for allowing a purse seine vessel with a dolphin mortality limit to fish for 10 days during the closure period; and (2) the exception that allowed purse seine vessels of class size 4 (
Per requirements of the Resolution, NMFS will notify the IATTC of the transfer 10 days in advance, either separately or with the other CPC transferring catch. The notification would specify the tonnage to be transferred and the year in which the transfer would occur. NMFS will be responsible for the management of the transferred catch limit, including monitoring and monthly reporting of catch.
If the United States engages in a transfer of a bigeye tuna catch limit with another CPC, NMFS will publish a notice in the
The final rule also requires that reports on FAD interactions, which are already required by regulations at 50 CFR 300.25(i), must be submitted within 30 days of each landing or transshipment of tuna or tuna-like species.
NMFS received a comment from the American Tunaboat Association (ATA), which represents large U.S. purse seine vessels that fish in the EPO, on the proposed regulations for FAD design. The ATA objected to these proposed regulations because the restrictions would go beyond the explicit requirements of Resolution C-17-02 and thereby create an unfair playing field for the U.S. fleet compared to the fleets of other IATTC CPCs. In consideration of ATA's comment, NMFS is modifying the proposed regulations in this final rule.
This final rule prohibits only two FAD design features that are suggested by ISSF to have the highest risk of entangling marine life. Based on ISSF guidance, FADs with the highest risk of entanglement use large mesh netting, such as 4.25 to 8 inch stretched mesh, that hang freely beneath the FAD (Figure 1). At this time, NMFS is not limiting the size of the net mesh used in the FAD design, but under the final rule, any netting used in the subsurface structure of the FAD must be tightly tied into bundles (“sausages”). In addition, if the FAD design includes a covered raft (
NMFS believes that these requirements will effectively prohibit FAD designs that are most dangerous for bycatch species, such as sharks. Furthermore, the requirements are sufficiently specific to be enforceable. NMFS believes that these restrictions also will allow U.S. industry to operate on an equal playing field relative to our IATTC partners. NMFS recognizes that any netting used in a FAD may become loose over time, yet in order to achieve the intent of the Resolution, the netting must remain secure and tight whenever deployed. Therefore, NMFS reminds the fleet that in order to comply with these regulations, the purse seine operators must remain vigilant in maintaining and securing all mesh net used in FADs.
NMFS has opted to establish standards that are more specific than the Resolution to aid with compliance and enforcement, and further the intent of the Resolution that member nations should design and deploy FADs “to avoid entangling marine life.” NMFS recognizes that the IATTC is expected to conduct more work to define non-entangling FADs and to develop specific guidance on materials and designs for FADs. NMFS intends to work with the IATTC FAD Working Group and the Commission to clarify non-entangling FAD requirements to ensure consistency between IATTC CPCs. NMFS will update these regulations, as appropriate, when guidance is adopted by the IATTC.
NMFS received six comments during the 30-day public comment period that closed on December 14, 2017, and one comment after the comment period closed. Two comments were anonymous, two were from members of the public, and the remaining were from representatives of the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), and the ATA. Three commenters supported the regulations as proposed, and one opposed the proposed rule because the regulations proposed to increase the longline catch limit for bigeye tuna. One of the anonymous commenters did not comment on the proposed regulations directly, but expressed views on global warming, and although this topic is not entirely outside the general subject matter of fisheries management, it does not warrant a response. The other comments are detailed below with responses from NMFS.
In response to the commenter's view that FADs are inefficient and contribute to wasteful bycatch, NMFS agrees that bycatch should continue to be mitigated through management measures. This final rule implements new restrictions on FADs, including requirements for designs that are intended to reduce the entanglement of bycatch species, such as sharks. NMFS intends to continue working with the IATTC Bycatch Working Group and the Commission to reduce bycatch in tuna fisheries in the EPO.
In response to the recommendation for biodegradable FADs, NMFS agrees that biodegradable materials are useful to reduce marine debris. Although the IATTC has not adopted binding measure on biodegradable FADs, Annex II of IATTC Resolution C-16-01 urges the promotion of biodegradable FADs as a voluntary measure, and NMFS expects this issue to be discussed more in the IATTC FAD Working Group, as well as by the Commission.
In the final rule, the proposal has been modified in a way that is still specific and aids with compliance and enforcement. The rule prohibits only design features that are shown by ISSF to have the highest risk of entangling marine life. Based on ISSF guidance, FADs with the highest risk of entanglement use large mesh netting that hangs freely beneath the FAD. Under these regulations, this design is prohibited and if any mesh netting is used in the subsurface part of the FAD it must be tightly rolled into “sausages.” This option was chosen because the standard can be understood by the regulated community and is enforceable, while at the same time not being overly restrictive compared to other IATTC CPCs.
Although the text in Resolution C-17-02 is broad, many countries seem to be using FAD materials and designs that are consistent with the “Lower Entanglement Risk FADs” and “Non-Entangling FADs” as described by ISSF. According to information collected by ISSF, the U.S. purse seine fleet uses the highest risk of entangling materials on FADs and the majority of the other IATTC members surveyed by ISSF used a combination of the “Lower Entanglement Risk FADs” and “Non-Entangling FADs.”
Given that the FAD design provisions of the Resolution must be implemented no later than January 1, 2019, NMFS intends to keep working with the IATTC FAD Working Group and the Commission to clarify non-entangling FAD requirements to ensure consistency between IATTC CPCs. NMFS will update these regulations, as appropriate, when guidance is adopted by the IATTC.
In addition, the MMC recommended that the U.S. delegation to the IATTC continue to press for sufficient observer coverage and vessel reporting requirements for all IATTC CPCs to provide reliable data on the impact of
In response to the request for NMFS to implement the Resolution requirement for non-entangling FADs, as explained in the preamble, NMFS will implement elements of the proposed regulations that are considered the highest risk for entanglement. NMFS recognizes the text in Resolution C-17-02 and C-16-01 needs to be clarified by the IATTC and NMFS intends to work on this issue within the IATTC.
NMFS is changing the regulatory text in the final rule from the proposed rule that relate to Active FADs, material and designs to reduce entanglements on FADs, and the process for exemptions due to force majeure.
As explained in the preamble, NMFS is adding a prohibition against deploying non-Active FADs in the EPO. NMFS solicited input from the public on this particular issue and, through discussion with industry, learned that the U.S. already deploys only Active FADs. In addition, the final regulation limits the daily reporting requirement for Active FADs only to FADs that are deployed in the water.
For reasons explained in the preamble above and in response to public comment, NMFS is modifying the proposed regulations on “Lower Entanglement Risk FADs” and “Non-Entangling FADs.” NMFS is revising the proposed regulations on the FAD material and design to require any mesh netting used in the subsurface structure of the FAD to be rolled. If mesh netting is used for the cover of the FAD raft, the mesh netting shall be tightly wrapped around the entire raft such that no loose netting hangs below the FAD when deployed.
NMFS is adding a procedural requirement to the regulations governing exemptions due to force majeure to be consistent with Resolution C-17-02, which requires that any request be sent to the IATTC “at the latest” 1 month after the force majeure event. NMFS is requiring the information to be sent to NMFS within 20 calendar days after the vessel has been unable to proceed to sea for 72 days because of a force majeure event to allow for additional time to review and process the request before NMFS sends the information to the Secretariat. NMFS is adding this requirement to ensure that any force majeure request submitted by U.S. purse seine vessel owners and operators are not disqualified by the IATTC Secretariat for issues related to timing of the request. The IATTC has final control over whether force majeure requests are accepted, and NMFS is adding the 20-day deadline to better ensure we are able to submit the requests to IATTC in a timely manner.
NMFS is removing the reference to carrying capacity in metric tons in 50 CFR 300.28(c) to be consistent with Resolution C-17-02 and to eliminate possible confusion with conversions between metric tons and cubic meters. In addition, NMFS is making various non-substantive revisions to the regulatory text for clarity or ease of reading.
After consultation with the Departments of State and Homeland Security, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as amended, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB Control Number 0648-0148. NMFS amended the supporting statement for the West Coast Region Pacific Tuna Fisheries Logbook and Fish Aggregating Device Form, Office of Management and Business (OMB) PRA requirements (OMB Control No. 0648-0148) to include the data collection requirements for FADs as described in the preamble. NMFS estimates that the public reporting burden for this collection of information will average 3 minutes per form, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at:
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further details on the factual basis for the certification were published in the proposed rule (November 14, 2017, 82 FR 52700) and are not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification, and none of the changes from the proposed to the final rule will increase costs to the affected public. Therefore, the certification published with the proposed rule that states this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is still valid. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive the requirement for providing advance notice and comment for requiring force majeure requests to be sent to NMFS within 20 calendar days to allow for additional time to review and process the request before NMFS sends the information to the IATTC Secretariat. If this regulation were delayed pending publication of a proposed rule and consideration of additional public comments, no time limits would be in place and therefore U.S. purse seine vessels might be disqualified by the IATTC Secretariat for issues related to the timing of the request. Additionally, this is a relatively minor procedural requirement that imposes a minimal regulatory burden.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 951
(a)
(3)
(ii)
(m) Fail to stow gear as required in § 300.25(a)(4)(iv) or (e)(6).
(n) Use a fishing vessel of class size 4-6 to fish with purse seine gear in the Convention Area in contravention of § 300.25(e)(1), (2), or (5).
(ee) Fail to ensure characters of a unique code are marked indelibly on a FAD deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017, in accordance with § 300.28(a)(2).
(ff) Fail to record or report data on FADs as required in § 300.22(a)(3).
(kk) Activate the transmission equipment attached to a FAD in a location other than on a purse seine vessel at sea as required in § 300.28(b).
(ll) Fail to turn on the tracking equipment for an Active FAD before deploying at sea as required in § 300.28(b).
(mm) Deploy a FAD in the IATTC Convention Area that is not an Active FAD.
(nn) Have more Active FADs than specified in § 300.28(c) in the IATTC Convention Area at any one time.
(oo) Deploy a FAD in the IATTC Convention Area during a period of 15 days prior to the start of the selected closure period in contravention of § 300.28(d)(1).
(pp) Fail to timely remove from the water a number of FADs in the IATTC Convention Area equal to the number of FADs set upon by the vessel during the 15 days prior to the start of the selected closure period as required in § 300.28(d)(2).
(qq) Deploy, or have onboard a vessel, a FAD in the IATTC Convention Area that fails to comply with the FAD design requirements in § 300.28(e).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Fishing seasons for all tuna species begin on 0000 hours Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) January 1 and end either on 2400 hours UTC December 31 or when NMFS closes the fishery for a specific species.
(2) For the calendar years 2018, 2019, 2020, there is a limit of 750 metric tons of bigeye tuna that may be caught by longline gear in the Convention Area by U.S. commercial fishing vessels that are over 24 meters in overall length. The catch limit within a calendar year is subject to increase if the United States receives a transfer of catch limit from another IATTC member or cooperating non-member, per paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(5) If the United States engages in a transfer of a bigeye tuna catch limit with another IATTC member or cooperating non-member, NMFS will publish a notice in the
(e)
(i) From 0000 hours Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) July 29, to 2400 hours UTC October 8, or
(ii) From 0000 hours UTC November 9 to 2400 hours UTC January 19 of the following year.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) If the request for an exemption due to force majeure is accepted by the IATTC, the vessel must observe a closure period of 40 consecutive days in the same year during which the force majeure event occurred, in one of the two closure periods described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(iii) If the request for an exemption due to force majeure is accepted by the IATTC and the vessel has already observed a closure period described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section in the same year during which the force majeure event occurred, the vessel must observe a closure period of 40 consecutive days the following year the force majeure event occurred, in one of the two closure periods described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(iv) Any purse seine vessel, for which a force majeure request is accepted by the IATTC, must carry an observer aboard authorized pursuant to the International Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program.
(5)
(6)
(a)
(2) U.S. purse seine vessel owners and operators shall ensure the characters of the unique code or unique identifier be marked indelibly at least five centimeters in height on the upper portion of the attached radio or satellite buoy in a location that does not cover the solar cells used to power the equipment. For FADs without attached radio or satellite buoys, the characters shall be on the uppermost or emergent top portion of the FAD. The vessel owner or operator shall ensure the marking is visible at all times during daylight. In circumstances where the on-board observer is unable to view the code, the captain or crew shall assist the observer (
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) During the 15 days prior to the start of the closure period selected by the vessel per § 300.25(e)(1), U.S. vessel owners, operators, and crew of purse seine vessels of class size 6 (greater than 363 metric tons carrying capacity) must remove from the water a number of FADs equal to the number of FADs set upon by the vessel during that same 15 day period.
(e)
(1)
(2)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This action implements an Omnibus Framework Adjustment to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's acceptable biological catch setting process, allows for adoption of peer-reviewed scientific information more quickly, and clarifies language in the Council's catch control rules. This action is necessary to provide an additional approach in catch setting that will help bring stability to quotas, ensure the best available scientific information is more readily available, and clarify existing control rule language. The intended effect of this action is to inform the public of these changes to the Council's catch setting control rules and process.
This rule is effective May 11, 2018.
Copies of the Council's Omnibus Acceptable Biological Catch Framework Adjustment and the accompanying environmental assessment (EA) are available on request from: Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Erin Wilkinson, Fishery Management Specialist, (301) 427-8561.
The Council is required to set annual catch limits (ACLs) that do not exceed the acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to prevent overfishing. ABCs represent an upper limit for the Council to use when setting catch limits. The 2011 ACL Omnibus Amendment final rule (76 FR 60606; September 29, 2011), put in place the Council's risk policy that provides guidance to the SSC on the Council's tolerance for overfishing risk. The policy also outlines risk tolerance for ensuring stocks under rebuilding plans achieve fishing mortality objectives.
The Council's risk policy for setting ABCs states that for a typical species whose stock size is equal to or greater than a biomass target associated with maximum sustainable yield (B
For both typical and atypical species, the Council has specified that as stock size biomass (B) falls below the target B
The fishery management plans (FMPs) managed by the Council all have provisions for setting specifications for multiple years (five years for dogfish and three years for all other species).
When the SSC accepts assessment fishing mortality reference points, the average probability of overfishing (or achieving the target fishing mortality for rebuilding stocks) may be used consistent with the existing risk policy requirements. The constant, multi-year ABCs that would result must continue to meet the Council's risk policy goals, with the probability of overfishing not to exceed 50 percent in any given year. For stocks in a rebuilding plan, the probability of achieving the rebuilding fishery mortality must meet the risk policy objectives when constant, multi-year ABCs are recommended by the SSC.
Averaged ABCs could be set at a constant level for up to five years for spiny dogfish and up to three years for all other species managed by the Council. The SSC may provide both variable, year-to-year and constant multi-year recommendations based on the average overfishing probability approach for the Council to consider. The SSC will continue to review fishery performance each year during multi-year specifications, regardless of which multi-year approach is used to determine ABCs. The multi-year averaging of ABCs will not apply to stocks that do not have a quantitative assessment to derive ABCs, or to stocks with an assessment that lacks information on the risk of overfishing.
In conjunction with this action, the Council developed and we approved some clarifying language describing its ABC control rule assessment level designations. These revisions are minor and intended to clarify the various components of the assessment levels used in the ABC control rules.
This action provides notice of the administrative process the Council will use for incorporating the best scientific information available in the development of ABCs for the Atlantic Bluefish, Tilefish, and Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMPs. All other Mid-Atlantic FMPs already use this process. The best available science requirements dictate that the SSC use the accepted assessment information to set quotas under National Standard 2. The Council's SSC will utilize peer-reviewed biological reference points (overfishing level, biomass thresholds, etc.) and periodic updates to stock status determination criteria (
We received one comment on the proposed rule from the public. The commenter suggested clarifying language in the preamble of the proposed rule notice, describing the measures. We clarified the description of the measures in the preamble of this final rule.
There are no changes from the proposed to final rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the Council's FMPs, and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to not be significant for purposes of Executive Order (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 during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification, and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The SSC shall review the following criteria, and any additional relevant information, to assign managed stocks to one of four types of control rules based on the species' assessments and its treatment of uncertainty when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC shall review the ABC control rule assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. ABCs may be recommended for up to three years for all stocks, with the exception of five years for spiny dogfish. The SCC may specify constant, multi-year ABCs, derived from the average of ABCs (or average risk of overfishing) if the average probability of overfishing remains between zero and 40 percent, and does not exceed a 50-percent probability in any given year. The average ABCs may remain constant for up to three years for all stocks, with the exception of five years for spiny dogfish. The SSC may deviate from the control rule methods and recommend an ABC that differs from the result of the ABC control rule application; however, any such deviation must include the following: A description of why the deviation is warranted; description of the methods used to derive the alternative ABC; and an explanation of how the deviation is consistent with National Standard 2. The four types of ABC control rules are described below.
(a)
(i) All important sources of scientific uncertainty are captured in the stock assessment model;
(ii) The probability distribution of the OFL is calculated within the stock assessment and adequately describes the OFL uncertainty;
(iii) The stock assessment model structure and treatment of the data prior to use in the model include relevant details of the biology of the stock, fisheries that exploit the stock, and data collection methods;
(iv) The stock assessment provides the following estimates: Fishing mortality rate (F) at MSY or an acceptable proxy maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) to define OFL, biomass, biological reference points, stock status, OFL, and the respective uncertainties associated with each value; and
(v) No substantial retrospective patterns exist in the stock assessment estimates of fishing mortality, biomass, and recruitment.
(2) An ABC for stocks with an accepted OFL probability distribution that is analytically-derived will be determined by applying the acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d) to the probability distribution of the OFL.
(b)
(i) Key features of the stock biology, the fisheries that exploit it, and/or the data collection methods for stock information are missing from, or poorly estimated in, the stock assessment;
(ii) The stock assessment provides reference points (which may be proxies), stock status, and uncertainties associated with each; however, the uncertainty is not fully promulgated through the stock assessment model and/or some important sources of uncertainty may be lacking;
(iii) The stock assessment provides estimates of the precision of biomass, fishing mortality, and reference points;
(iv) The accuracy of the minimum fishing mortality threshold and projected future biomass is estimated in the stock assessment using ad hoc methods; and
(v) The modified OFL probability distribution provided by the assessment team acceptably addresses the uncertainty of the assessment.
(2) An ABC for stocks with an OFL probability distribution that is modified by the assessment team and accepted by the SSC will be determined by applying the acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d) to the probability distribution of the OFL as modified by the assessment team.
(c)
(2) An ABC for stocks with an OFL probability distribution that is modified by the SSC will be determined by either:
(i) Applying the acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d) to the SSC-adjusted OFL probability distribution. The SSC will use default assignments of uncertainty in the adjusted OFL probability distribution based on literature review and valuation of control rule performance; or,
(ii) If the SSC cannot develop an OFL probability distribution, a default control rule of 75 percent of the F
(d)
(2) An ABC for stocks with an OFL that cannot be specified will be determined by using control rules based on biomass and catch history and application of the MAFMC's risk policy found in § 648.21(a) through (d).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notification of intent and solicitation of nominations for membership.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is giving notice that DOE intends to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed test procedures and amended energy conservation standards for variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps (VRF multi-split systems). The purpose of the working group will be to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule regarding test procedures and energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems, as authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended. The working group will consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards and/or test procedure, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues. DOE is hereby soliciting nominations for members of the VRF multi-split systems working group. Application packages should be submitted to DOE by April 26, 2018.
Nominations of membership must be received on or before April 26, 2018. DOE will not consider any nominations received via mail or after midnight on April 26, 2018.
The nominee's name, resume, biography, and any letters of support must be submitted in electronic format via email to
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies (EE-5B), 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: 202-287-1692. Email:
DOE is announcing its intent to negotiate proposed test procedures and amended energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems under the authority of sections 563 and 564 of the NRA (5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320). The regulation of VRF multi-split systems standards that DOE is proposing to develop under a negotiated rulemaking will be developed under the authority of EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6291
On January 10, 2018, the ASRAC met and made a recommendation to form a VRF multi-split systems subcommittee to meet, discuss, and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for the test procedures and energy efficiency standards for VRFs. For purposes of this document, the ASRAC subcommittee at issue will be referred to as the “working group.” As required by the NRA, DOE is giving notice that it is establishing a working group under ASRAC to discuss proposed amended test procedures and energy efficiency requirements for VRF multi-split systems. The working group will be established and function as a subcommittee of ASRAC in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 2.
DOE is supporting the use of the negotiated rulemaking process to discuss and develop proposed test procedures and amended energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems. The primary reason for using the negotiated rulemaking process for this equipment is that stakeholders strongly support a consensual rulemaking effort. DOE believes such a regulatory negotiation process will be less adversarial and better suited to resolving complex technical issues. An important virtue of negotiated rulemaking is that it allows expert dialog that is much better than traditional techniques at getting the facts and issues right and will result in a proposed rule that will effectively reflect Congressional intent.
A regulatory negotiation will enable DOE to engage in direct and sustained dialog with informed, interested, and affected parties when drafting the regulation, rather than obtaining input during a public comment period after developing and publishing a proposed rule. A rule drafted by negotiation with informed and affected parties is expected to be potentially more pragmatic and more easily implemented than a rule arising from the traditional process. Such rulemaking improvement is likely to provide the public with the full benefits of the rule while minimizing the potential negative impact of a proposed regulation conceived or drafted without the full prior input of outside knowledgeable parties. Because a negotiating working group includes representatives from the major stakeholder groups, including consumers, affected by or interested in the rule, the number of public comments on the proposed rule may be decreased. DOE anticipates that there will be a need for fewer substantive changes to a proposed rule developed under a regulatory negotiation process prior to the publication of a final rule.
Usually, DOE develops a proposed rulemaking using Department staff and consultant resources. Congress noted in the NRA, however, that regulatory development may “discourage the affected parties from meeting and
Using negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule differs fundamentally from the Department centered process. In negotiated rulemaking, a proposed rule is developed by an advisory committee or a working group established by the advisory committee, composed of members chosen to represent the various interests that will be significantly affected by the rule. The goal of the advisory committee or its working group is to reach consensus on the treatment of the major issues involved with the rule. The process starts with the Department's careful identification of all interests potentially affected by the rulemaking under consideration. To help with this identification, the Department publishes a notification of intent such as this one in the
If the advisory committee itself is undertaking the negotiation, once the committee reaches consensus on the provisions of a proposed rule and recommends such consensus to the Department, the Department, consistent with its legal obligations, may use such consensus as the basis of its proposed rule, which then is published in the
The NRA enables DOE to establish an advisory committee or a working group under the advisory committee if it is determined that the use of the negotiated rulemaking process is in the public interest. DOE intends to develop Federal regulations that build on the depth of experience accrued in both the public and private sectors in implementing standards and programs.
DOE has determined that the regulatory negotiation process will provide for obtaining a diverse array of in-depth input, as well as an opportunity for increased collaborative discussion from both private-sector stakeholders and government officials who are familiar with energy efficiency of VRF multi-split systems.
In initiating this regulatory negotiation process to develop test procedures and amended energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems, DOE is making a commitment to provide adequate resources to facilitate timely and successful completion of the process. This commitment includes making the process a priority activity for all representatives, components, officials, and personnel of the Department who need to be involved in the rulemaking, from the time of initiation until such time as a final rule is issued or the process is expressly terminated. DOE will provide administrative support for the process and will take steps to ensure that the advisory committee or its working group has the dedicated resources it requires to complete its work in a timely fashion. Specifically, DOE will make available the following support services: Properly equipped space adequate for public meetings and caucuses; logistical support; word processing and distribution of background information; the service of a facilitator; and such additional research and other technical assistance as may be necessary. All meetings will provide an opportunity for all members of the working group and other interested parties to participate by webinar. While DOE strongly encourages members to participate in person, DOE realizes that travel costs may prohibit in-person attendance. Prospective members, therefore, should not allow travel costs to affect their decision to apply for membership.
To the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of the Department, DOE will use the consensus of the advisory committee as the basis for the rule the Department proposes for public notice and comment.
As discussed, the negotiated rulemaking process differs fundamentally from the usual process for developing a proposed rule. Negotiation enables interested and affected parties to discuss various approaches to issues rather than asking them only to respond to a proposal developed by the Department. The negotiation process involves a mutual education of the various parties on the practical concerns about the impact of standards. Each advisory committee or working group member participates in resolving the interests and concerns of other members, rather than leaving it up to DOE to evaluate and incorporate different points of view.
A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is by consensus of all the interests. Thus, no one interest or group of interests is able to control the process. The NRA defines consensus as the unanimous concurrence among interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee or working group, unless the advisory committee or its working group itself unanimously agrees to use a different definition. 5 U.S.C. 562. In
The following issues and concerns will underlie the work of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Systems Energy Conservation Standards:
• Test procedures for VRF multi-split systems; and
• Energy Conservation Standards for VRF multi-split systems.
To examine the underlying issues outlined above, and others not yet articulated, all parties in the negotiation will need DOE to provide data and an analytic framework complete and accurate enough to support their deliberations. DOE`s analyses must be adequate to inform a prospective negotiation. Prior to the commencement of the working group, DOE expects to publish a notice of data availability (NODA) which discusses the results of DOE's analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems. DOE also expects to publish a technical support document and analytical tools along with the NODA. Working Groups members should review the associated materials before each meeting.
A working group will be formed and operated in full compliance with the requirements of FACA and in a manner consistent with the requirements of the NRA. DOE has determined that the working group shall not exceed 25 members. The Department believes that more than 25 members would make it difficult to conduct effective negotiations. DOE is aware that there may be many more potential participants than there are membership slots on the working group. The Department does not believe, nor does the NRA contemplate, that each potentially affected group must participate directly in the negotiations; nevertheless, each affected interest can be adequately represented. To have a successful negotiation, it is important for interested parties to identify and form coalitions that adequately represent significantly affected interests. To provide adequate representation, those coalitions must agree to support, both financially and technically, a member of the working group whom they choose to represent their interests. DOE is especially interested in representation by consumers of VRF multi-split systems since any potential energy conservation standard may impact this stakeholder group. Consumers of VRFs may include, but are not limited to, commercial building owners, commercial heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning architects, or commercial building tenants that pay utility bills.
DOE recognizes that when it establishes energy efficiency standards and test procedures for residential products and commercial equipment, various segments of society may be affected in different ways, in some cases producing unique “interests” in a proposed rule based on income, gender, or other factors. The Department will pay attention to providing that any unique interests that have been identified, and that may be significantly affected by the proposed rule, are represented. Per the ASRAC charter, the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy or his designee, in consultation with the ASRAC Chair, appoints ASRAC subcommittee (working group) chairs.
FACA also requires that members of the public have the opportunity to attend meetings of the full committee and speak or otherwise address the committee during the public comment period. In addition, any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the advisory committee. DOE plans to adhere to these requirements in the conduct of the working group.
DOE anticipates that the working group will comprise no more than 25 members who represent affected and interested stakeholder groups, at least one of whom must be a member of the ASRAC. As required by FACA, the Department will select members for the working group with particular attention to ensuring full and balanced representation of those interests that may be significantly affected by the proposed rule amending standards for VRF multi-split systems. Section 562 of the NRA defines the term “interest” as “with respect to an issue or matter, multiple parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be affected in a similar manner.” Listed below are parties the Department to date has identified as being “significantly affected” by a proposed rule regarding the energy efficiency of VRF multi-split systems.
One purpose of this notification of intent is to determine whether Federal regulations for VRF multi-split systems will significantly affect interests that are not listed above. DOE invites comment and suggestions on its initial list of significantly affected interests and encourages all interested parties and interests to apply for the working group.
Members may be individuals or organizations. If the effort is to be fruitful, participants on the working group should be able to fully and adequately represent the viewpoints of their respective interests. This document gives notice of DOE's process to other potential participants and affords them the opportunity to request representation in the negotiations. Those who wish to nominate members to the working group, should submit an application package to DOE, in accordance with the public participation procedures outlined in the
• The nominee's current resume or curriculum vitae and contact information, including mailing address, email address, and telephone number;
• A letter of interest, which includes:
○ A summary of how the nominee's experience and expertise would support the working group's objectives;
○ The interest the nominee would represent in the working group; and
○ A description of other assets (such as data or modeling tools) the nominee could provide to support the working group's objectives.
Membership of the working group is likely to involve:
• Attendance (in person preferable) at approximately ten (10), one (1)- to two (2)-day meetings (with the potential for two (2) additional one (1)- or two (2)-day meetings);
• Travel costs to those meetings, if participating in person; and
• Preparation time for those meetings.
Members serving on the working group will not receive compensation for their services. Interested parties who are not selected for membership on the working group may make valuable contributions to this negotiated rulemaking effort in any of the following ways:
• The person may request to be placed on the working group mailing list and submit written comments as appropriate.
• The person may attend working group meetings, which are open to the public; caucus with his or her interest's member on the working group; or even address the working group during the public comment portion of the working group meeting.
• The person could assist the efforts of a workgroup that the working group might establish.
A working group may establish informal workgroups, which usually are asked to facilitate committee deliberations by assisting with various technical matters (
Every working group member must be willing to negotiate in good faith and have the authority, granted by his or her constituency, to do so. The first step is to ensure that each member has good communications with his or her constituencies. An intra-interest network of communication should be established to bring information from the support organization to the member at the table, and to take information from the table back to the support organization. Second, each organization or coalition therefore should designate as its representative a person having the credibility and authority to ensure that needed information is provided and decisions are made in a timely fashion. Negotiated rulemaking can require the appointed members to give a significant sustained time commitment for as long as the duration of the negotiated rulemaking. Other qualities of members that can be helpful are negotiating experience and skills, familiarity with using VRF multi-split systems as a consumer, and/or sufficient technical knowledge to participate in substantive negotiations.
Certain concepts are central to negotiating in good faith. One is the willingness to bring all issues to the bargaining table in an attempt to reach a consensus, as opposed to keeping key issues in reserve. The second is a willingness to keep the issues at the table and not take them to other forums. Finally, good faith includes a willingness to move away from some of the positions often taken in a more traditional rulemaking process, and instead explore openly with other parties all ideas that may emerge from the working group's discussions.
The facilitator will act as a neutral in the substantive development of the proposed standard. Rather, the facilitator's role generally includes:
• Impartially assisting the members of the working group in conducting discussions and negotiations; and
• Impartially assisting in performing the duties of the Designated Federal Official under FACA.
The DOE representative will be a full and active participant in the consensus building negotiations. The Department's representative will meet regularly with senior Department officials, briefing them on the negotiations and receiving their suggestions and advice so that he or she can effectively represent the Department's views regarding the issues before the working group. DOE's representative also will ensure that the entire spectrum of governmental interests affected by the standards rulemaking, including the Office of Management and Budget, the Attorney General, and other Departmental offices, are kept informed of the negotiations and encouraged to make their concerns known in a timely fashion.
After evaluating the comments submitted in response to this notification of intent and the requests for nominations, DOE will either inform the members of the working group that they have been selected or determine that conducting a negotiated rulemaking is inappropriate.
The working group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate its first term sheet on test procedures and its second term sheet on energy conservation standards within six (6) months of its first meeting. The working group's negotiations will take place around two discrete tasks. The test procedure term sheet, if completed, is to be approved by the working group and transmitted to ASRAC prior to commencement of negotiations regarding the energy conservation standards. At the completion of the negotiations for each discrete tasks, the term sheet, if completed, will be presented to ASRAC at an open meeting for their deliberation and decision on whether or not to approve it and submit it to DOE as a formal recommendation.
DOE will advise working group members of administrative matters related to the functions of the working group before beginning. While the negotiated rulemaking process is underway, DOE is committed to performing much of the same analysis as it would during a normal standards rulemaking process and to providing information and technical support to the working group.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notification of intent.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA), has issued DCA/750XL/27A, dated March 1, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:
The sound insulation material on the aft face of the firewall must comply with the applicable burn test criteria specified in FAR 23.853(f).
Inspect the aft face of the firewall and determine if sound insulation material is installed per the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/095 issue 1, dated 21 December 2017, or later approved revision.
If a layer of black foam insulating material is found covering the firewall, then remove the material per the instructions in MSB PACSB/XL/095 before further flight.
Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the airplane sound insulation attached to the aft face of the firewall and removal if necessary. 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours, for a cost of $680 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
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 AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 29, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including 215, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 54: Nacelles/Pylons.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as airplane sound insulation materials attached to the aft face of the firewall not complying with the applicable burn testing criteria for materials on the cabin side of the firewall. We are issuing this AD to prevent the spread of fire into the cabin in case of an engine fire.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 90 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the aft face of the firewall and determine if the sound insulation material is installed per the Inspection Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.
(2) If a layer of black foam insulating material is found covering the firewall during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, remove the material per the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI CAA AD DCA/750XL/27A, dated March 1, 2018; and Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by an uncommanded high thrust event that occurred during approach on January 16, 2016, and during landing on April 6, 2016. This proposed AD would require removal of the metering valve pilot valve (MVPV) within certain fuel control units (FCUs) and the MVPV's replacement with a part eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; 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 received reports of an uncommanded high thrust event that occurred during approach on January 16, 2016, and during landing on April 6, 2016, due to loosening of the MVPV end cap. These uncommanded events were associated with improper maintenance on the MVPV within certain FCUs. This proposed AD would require removal of the MVPV for certain FCUs. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the FCU, loss of engine thrust control, and reduced control of the airplane.
We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW2000 A73-172, dated October 16, 2017. The ASB describes procedures for replacement of the MVPV for certain FCUs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require replacement of the MVPV for certain FCU serial numbers, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
PW ASB PW2000 A73-172, dated October 16, 2017, specifies installation of a new UTC Aerospace Systems MVPV in certain FCUs. This AD sets forth an option to repair a MVPV to be installed in certain FCUs according to the criteria listed in paragraph h(2)(ii) of this AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 212 engines installed on 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 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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 29, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines with JFC104-1 fuel control units (FCUs) with serial numbers listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 1, of PW Alert Service Bulletin PW2000 A73-172, dated October 16, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control/Turbine Engines.
This AD was prompted by an uncommanded high thrust event that occurred during approach on January 16, 2016, and during landing on April 6, 2016. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the end cap to remain taut, causing uncommanded higher fuel flow to the engine. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the FCU, loss of engine thrust control and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Remove from service the metering valve pilot valve (MVPV) from the FCU at the next FCU overhaul after the effective date of the AD and replace the MVPV with a part eligible for installation.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, an FCU overhaul is defined as the removal of the FCU from the engine and induction of the FCU into a FCU shop that can perform these procedures regardless of the scheduled maintenance action or the reason for the FCU removal.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a part eligible for installation is one of the following:
(i) A zero time MVPV, or
(ii) An MVPV repaired by a method approved by the FAA that includes an end plug with tamper proof features.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any MVPV removed in accordance with paragraph (g) unless it has been repaired per paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, ECO 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 (k)(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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish the Hawaiian High and Hawaiian Low Offshore airspace area. The proposed action would establish Class A airspace extending upward from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to and including flight level (FL) 600; and Class E airspace, extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL to and including 17,999 feet MSL around the Hawaiian Islands. The FAA is proposing this action to provide additional airspace within which domestic air traffic control (ATC) procedures would be used. Establishment of the Class A and Class E airspaces would enhance the management of air traffic operations and result in more efficient use of that airspace.
Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket Number FAA-2017-1013 and Airspace Docket Number 17-AWP-12 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would support offshore airspace areas around the Hawaiian Islands, and apply domestic air traffic control procedures.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket Number FAA-2017-1013 and Airspace Docket Number 17-AWP-12) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket Number FAA-2017-1013 and Airspace Docket Number 17-AWP-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see “
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The existing airspace configuration is not consistent with the domestic airspace established throughout the rest of the United States and does not meet the uniform international standards and recommended practices, as promulgated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The area controlled by Honolulu Control Facility (HCF) is within Oakland Oceanic Control Area/Flight Information Region (CTA/FIR) Boundary. The provision of ATC services is delegated by Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZOA) to HCF to provide flight information and alerting service within this area. Currently, HCF has Domestic Class E airspace out to 100 miles around the Hawaiian Islands. Due to the incorrect airspace designations, HCF is providing domestic IFR separation services within HCF airspace 1,200 feet MSL up to FL 600, inclusive, and in international airspace without a designated offshore airspace area. The absence of Class E and Class A airspace to the boundary of HCF's delegated airspace where ATC has radar and radio navigational signal coverage is inconsistent with the CFRs and will be corrected with this proposed rule. Under a separate rulemaking action, domestic airspace will be amended out to the 12 nautical miles limit surrounding the Hawaiian Islands. Additionally, the establishment of the high and low Offshore Airspace Areas will extend beyond the 12 NM limit to the boundary of the HCF delegated airspace.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish the Hawaiian Islands High and the Hawaiian Islands Low Offshore airspace areas. The proposed area would consist of Class A airspace, extending upward from 18,000 MSL up to and including FL 600, and Class E airspace, extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL up to and including 17,999 feet MSL within HCF's designated airspace around the Hawaiian Islands. This action would facilitate the application of domestic ATC procedures within that airspace, thereby enhancing the flow of air traffic and increasing system capacity. In addition, this action would enhance safety by providing for the positive control of all aircraft operating in the area. The proposed action would also support the development of a more efficient route system and would enable airspace classification and ATC separation procedures to be consistently applied around the Hawaiian Islands. Finally, the proposed modification would establish the same classification and operating rules that currently apply in adjacent airspace.
Class A and E Offshore airspace area designations are published in paragraph 2003 and 6007 respectively, in FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which
As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices. Article 12 to the Chicago Convention provides that over the high seas the rules inforce shall be those established under the convention. The application of International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of Airspace Services, in areas outside United States domestic airspace, is governed by Annexes 2 (Rule of the Air) and 11 (Air Traffic Services) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions. The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty. A contracting State accepting this responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in its domestic jurisdiction. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, State-owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting State to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the Administrator is consulting with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 10854.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 18,000 feet MSL to and including FL 600 within the area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 24°43′17″ N, long. 155°15′47″ W; to lat. 24°17′45″ N, long. 154°15′00″ W; to lat. 23°46′50″ N, long. 153°21′58″ W; to lat. 23°01′27″ N, long. 152°34′40″ W; to lat. 22°20′39″ N, long. 151°53′07″ W; to lat. 21°32′52″ N, long. 151°27′59″ W; to lat. 20°41′49″ N, long. 151°01′09″ W; to lat. 19°41′47″ N, long. 150°30′11″ W; to lat. 19°13′22″ N, long. 151°52′46″ W; to lat. 19°08′32″ N, long. 154°29′00″ W; to lat. 18°06′32″ N, long. 155°42′42″ W; to lat. 17°48′18″ N, long. 156°04′05″ W; to lat. 17°10′14″ N, long. 156°48′21″ W; to lat. 17°10′14″ N, long. 157°45′24″ W; to lat. 17°13′28″ N, long. 158°15′04″ W; to lat. 17°45′21″ N, long. 159°32′20″ W; to lat. 18°03′09″ N, long. 160°16′11″ W; to lat. 18°24′28″ N, long. 160°48′51″ W; to lat. 19°24′54″ N, long. 162°23′01″ W; to lat. 19°39′29″ N, long. 162°41′58″ W; to lat. 20°07′00″ N, long. 163°18′00″ W; to lat. 21°09′04″ N, long. 163°54′52″ W; to lat. 22°12′20″ N, long. 163°54′52″ W; to lat. 23°15′30″ N, long. 163°51′18″ W; to lat. 24°10′08″ N, long. 163°15′59″ W; to lat. 25°03′24″ N, long. 162°38′59″ W; to lat. 25°40′34″ N, long. 161°41′28″ W; to lat. 26°06′18″ N, long. 160°37′54″ W; to lat. 26°08′41″ N, long. 158°37′19″ W; thence to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace within 12 miles of the shoreline of the State of Hawaii.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL within the area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 19°10′04″ N, long. 153°39′43″ W; to lat. 19°08′32″ N, long. 154°29′00″ W; to lat. 19°07′10″ N, long. 155°13′34″ W; to lat. 18°45′39″ N, long. 155°35′36″ W; to lat. 18°40′54″ N, long. 156°05′48″ W; to lat. 19°24′23″ N, long. 158°36′11″ W; to lat. 20°18′00″ N, long. 160°46′52″ W; to lat. 20°49′07″ N, long. 161°33′17″ W; to lat. 21°40′37″ N, long. 161°54′48″ W; to lat. 22°31′49″ N, long. 161°55′19″ W; to lat. 23°26′57″ N, long. 161°31′39″ W; to lat. 23°57′27″ N, long. 160°54′00″ W; to lat. 24°18′03″ N, long. 159°50′09″ W; to lat. 24°10′39″ N, long. 158°54′47″ W; to lat. 23°47′34″ N, long. 158°11′12″ W; to lat. 23°30′03″ N, long. 157°29′36″ W; to lat. 23°19′54″ N, long. 156°45′02″ W; to lat. 23°13′26″ N, long. 155°42′39″ W; to lat. 22°54′59″ N, long. 154°55′06″ W; to lat. 22°28′14″ N, long. 154°19′27″ W; to lat. 21°45′08″ N, long. 153°49′50″ W; to lat. 21°02′31″ N, long. 153°38′56″ W; thence to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace within 12 miles of the shoreline of the State of Hawaii. That airspace extending upward from 5,500 feet MSL within the area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 19°11′37″ N, long. 152°50′00″ W; to lat. 19°08′32″ N, long. 154°29′00″ W; to lat. 17°48′59″ N, long. 156°03′17″ W; to lat. 18°28′58″ N, long. 157°59′36″ W; to lat. 19°03′34″ N, long. 159°48′11″ W; to lat. 19°29′40″ N, long. 160°47′02″ W; to lat. 20°00′46″ N, long. 161°44′53″ W, to lat. 20°50′35″ N, long. 162°23′01″ W; to lat. 21°50′15″ N, long. 162°44′13″ W; to lat. 22°52′38″ N, long. 162°38′25″ W; to lat. 23°55′59″ N, long. 162°08′09″ W, to lat. 24°43′41″ N, long. 161°12′18″ W; to lat. 25°00′33″ N, long. 159°50′17″ W; to lat. 24°50′45″ N, long. 158°32′32″ W; to lat. 24°19′39″ N, long.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The FHWA is proposing to approve the addition of Sheridan Boulevard (NY 895) to the National Network (NN) and to revise its regulations to reflect the addition. The facility currently known as “Interstate-895 Sheridan Expressway” in New York City, located in Bronx County, will be reconstructed, removed from the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate System) to accommodate new design features, and classified as an “Urban Principal Arterial—Other.” This facility will be identified as the “Sheridan Boulevard (NY 895).”
Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.
Mail or hand deliver comments to Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, submit comments electronically at
All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notifications of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
For technical information, contact Ms. Crystal Jones, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations, (202) 366-2976. For legal information, contact Mr. William Winne, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397. Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
The NN consists of Interstate System routes (except exempted routes) and those non-Interstate System routes added through the rulemaking process. See 49 U.S.C. 31111(e)-(f) and 31113(e); 23 CFR 658 Appendix A; see also 49 FR 23302 (June 5, 1984). To ensure that the NN remains substantially intact, FHWA retains the authority to rule upon all requests for additions to and deletions from the NN as well as requests for the imposition of certain restrictions. Pursuant to 23 CFR 658.11, requests for additions to the NN must be submitted in writing to the appropriate FHWA Division Office and endorsed by the Governor or the Governor's authorized representative. Proposals for addition of routes to the NN must also be accompanied by an analysis of suitability based on the criteria in 23 CFR 658.9. Once a non-Interstate System route is added to the NN, it is included in Appendix A of 23 CFR part 658—National Network—Federally Designated Routes.
On November 10, 2017, FHWA received a request from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) proposing a modification to the Interstate System. The request, available in the rulemaking docket, proposes the de-designation (removal from the Interstate System) of the Sheridan Expressway (I-895), approximately a 1.3-mile Interstate between the Bruckner Expressway (I-278) and the Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95). As part of the de-designation, the State also proposes the functional reclassification of this highway segment from an Interstate to “Urban Principal Arterial—Other” and to rename the road Sheridan Boulevard (NY-895). The physical alignment of the highway would be maintained and it would therefore continue to provide the same access for commercial vehicles as currently exists. The FHWA intends to act on this request pursuant to its regulatory authority on revisions to the Interstate System (23 CFR 470.115(a) and 23 CFR 658.11(d)) and guidance on Interstate System de-designations (
The NYSDOT intends to keep Sheridan Boulevard (NY-895) in the NN. Because the route would no longer be in the Interstate System, it must be added to NN as a non-Interstate System route and be listed in 23 CFR 658 Appendix A. The NYSDOT proposal included the required analysis of suitability based on the criteria in 23 CFR 658.9, which includes a crash
The FHWA reviewed NYSDOT's proposal and affirms that the request to add a route to the NN is consistent with 23 CFR 658.9 and 658.11 with respect to the criteria for the NN and the procedures for additions to the NN. In this Notice of Proposal Rulemaking, FHWA is proposing to approve the addition of Sheridan Boulevard (NY 895) to the NN and to revise existing regulations (23 CFR 658 Appendix A) to reflect the addition.
As the Sheridan Expressway is already part of the NN due to its Interstate designation, FHWA has determined there would be no substantive impact to the public resulting from the addition of the reconstructed facility, Sheridan Boulevard, to the NN.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and is not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. Finally, this proposed rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 60l-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. This action does not affect any funding distributed under any of the programs administered by FHWA. For these reasons, FHWA certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $148.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the agencies will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order since it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this rule does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The FHWA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not cause any environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
The FHWA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interface with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
The Agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Grants Program—transportation, Highways and roads, Motor carriers.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part 658, as set forth below:
23 U.S.C. 127 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111, 31112, and 31114; sec. 347, Pub. L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 419; sec. 756, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1219; sec. 115, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2408; 49 CFR 1.48(b)(19) and (c)(19).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa to incorporate an amendment to the Administrative Consent Order (ACO) for Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine, Iowa. The revision amends the ACO to change the date for completion of performance testing from May 31, 2017, to May 31, 2018, to allow the state more time to complete the remaining air construction permit applications submitted by GPC, and to specify testing requirements as appropriate in the final permits. When the state submitted the request to amend the ACO, twelve of the 107 permits were incomplete. At this time, only two permits have not been issued by the State. The air quality in Muscatine, Iowa, has not been adversely impacted by the remaining pending permit approvals. This revision will not impact the schedule for installation and operation of control equipment, will not alter any other compliance dates, and will not adversely affect air quality in Muscatine, Iowa, as explained in the revised Technical Support Document that is part of this docket.
This proposal will also address adverse comments submitted to the docket.
Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0143 to
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7039, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
On August 25, 2017, EPA proposed to approve a revision to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) which amended the Administrative Consent Order (ACO) for Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine, Iowa. The revision amended the ACO to change the date for completion of performance testing from May 31, 2017, to May 31, 2018, to allow the state more time to complete processing the remaining air construction permit applications submitted by GPC, and to specify testing requirements as appropriate in the remaining final permits.
This proposal will also address adverse comments submitted to the docket.
This proposed revision to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) will incorporate an amendment to the Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine, Iowa. The revision changes the date for completion of performance testing from May 31, 2017, to May 31, 2018, to allow the state more time to complete processing the remaining air construction permit applications submitted by GPC, and to specify testing requirements as appropriate in the remaining final permits. This amendment will not impact the schedule for installation and operation of control equipment, will not alter any other compliance dates, and will not adversely affect air quality in the Muscatine, Iowa, area as explained in the Technical Support Document that is part of this docket.
This proposal will also address adverse comments submitted to the docket.
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state instituted a 30-day comment period; no comments were received. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the revised Technical Support Document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The public comment period for EPA's proposed rule opened August 25, 2017, the date of its publication in the
The complete and quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the area shows that the area has, and continues to attain the NAAQS. Background information with regard to air quality in Muscatine, Iowa, as well as design values of air monitors are included in the revised TSD, included in this docket.
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Iowa to incorporate an amendment to the Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine, Iowa. EPA is also responding to comments received in the docket, and by responding to comments provides additional information with regard to the remaining permits to be finalized by the State of Iowa. A revised TSD is included as part of this docket to support the revision to the ACO.
We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Iowa's EPA-approved State source-specific permits described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the 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);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
• 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).
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 11, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d)* * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the
Comments are due on or before May 21, 2018; reply comments are due on or before June 20, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 18-22, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information, contact Paul Murray, of the Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-0688,
Comments are due on or before May 21, 2018; reply comments are due on or before June 20, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to streamline the process for reauthorizing television satellite stations when they are assigned or transferred in combination with their previously approved parent station. This document continues the Commission's efforts to modernize its regulations and reduce unnecessary requirements that can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.
Comments are due on or before May 11, 2018 and reply comments are due on or before May 29, 2018.
Interested parties may submit comments and replies, identified by MB Docket Nos 18-63, 17-105, by any of the following methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Julie Salovaara, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, FCC, at
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 18-34, in MB Docket Nos. 18-63, 17-105, adopted on March 22, 2018, and released on March 23, 2018. The complete text of this document is available electronically via the search function on the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) web page at
1.
2.
3. In 1991, the Commission revised the standards for television stations seeking satellite status and the corresponding ownership exception. The Commission adopted a rebuttable presumption that stations would qualify for satellite status if: (1) There was no City Grade overlap between the parent and the satellite station; (2) the satellite station served an underserved area; and (3) no alternative operator was ready and able to construct or to purchase and operate the satellite station as a full-service station. The Commission established detailed evidentiary standards for meeting the second and third criteria. If an applicant could not qualify for the presumption, the Commission would evaluate the proposal on an
4. To help encourage satellite stations to air more of their own programming, the Commission eliminated the previous requirement that no more than five percent of a station's programming could be locally originated in order for the station to maintain its satellite status. The Commission stated that allowing satellite stations to exceed that limit would promote its diversity and localism goals. It recognized, however, that its action had potential ramifications for subsequent transfers or assignments of such stations because a satellite station could become more like a full-service station based on its origination of local programming. Accordingly, it required applicants seeking to transfer or assign a parent/satellite combination that otherwise would violate the Local Television Ownership Rule to demonstrate that the conditions that had warranted satellite status continued to exist at the time of any subsequent transfer or assignment.
5. The transition to digital television service in 2009 complicated the assessment of the first prong of the Commission's presumptive standard in that there is no digital counterpart to a station's analog City Grade contour. Accordingly, in the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review proceeding, the Commission clarified that, consistent with case law developed after the transition, it will evaluate requests for new and continued satellite status on an
6.
7.
8. We seek comment on ways to streamline the reauthorization process while also ensuring that the process affords the Commission and the public adequate information to determine whether reauthorization serves the public interest. We tentatively conclude that the public interest will be served by permitting a previously approved parent/satellite station combination to be assigned or transferred without the reauthorization request that currently is required and without a written Commission decision granting reauthorization if the following two conditions are met. First, we propose that the assignment or transfer application must include a certification by both parties to the transaction that the underlying circumstances that the Commission relied upon in granting the current satellite authorization have not changed materially since the issuance of the most recent authorization. Second, we propose that the assignment or transfer application must include a complete copy of the most recent written Commission decision (
9. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal. For example, what impact, if any, would the proposal have on small entities? In addition, what showing should the Commission require in the event that the Commission's most recent decision granting satellite status, which may never have been published or put in the public record, is unavailable or does not specify the facts and circumstances surrounding the grant? We also seek comment on how the Commission should memorialize its reauthorization approval when the approval of an assignment or transfer application is not a written decision explaining the scope and basis of the Commission's decision but instead is recorded only on the FCC Form 732. In such circumstances, what information should the Commission include in the FCC Form 732 authorization regarding the satellite station? In addition, to obtain reauthorization approval, is it sufficient for applicants to certify generally that there has been no material change in the circumstances that warranted the station's most recently authorized satellite status? What types of changes would be considered material? For example, would a change in contour be material if the lack of contour overlap was part of the basis upon which the underlying satellite status was granted? If the current authorization is not based on a finding that the service area was underserved or on a finding that the licensee undertook a diligent but unsuccessful search for a buyer, but instead on alternative showings, what would constitute a material change in circumstances? Alternatively, should the Commission require the applicants to attest to a set of more specific facts relevant to the Commission's usual considerations in determining satellite status? For example, where relevant, should the applicants specifically certify that the service area remains underserved as the Commission has defined that term? What other specific certifications, if any, would be useful to require without defeating the purpose of streamlining the reauthorization process?
10. We also seek comment on whether any streamlined reauthorization procedures we adopt should be restricted to transactions that involve the assignment or transfer of a television satellite station in combination with its previously approved parent station. A commenter argued that satellite status should not be limited to a particular parent/satellite combination. The suggestion was that licensees should have the flexibility to change a satellite station's parent without needing to repeat the full showing required for an initial satellite exception. On the other hand, satellite station determinations are fact specific inquiries that rely in part on the identity of the specific stations involved. Unlike renewals of previously approved parent/satellite combinations, the Commission and the public have never had an opportunity to review the particular circumstances of the new combination. Given that there may be public interest benefits associated with a change in parent station and the fact that the public has the opportunity to raise any concerns regarding a reauthorization request, we seek comment on whether we should or should not apply any streamlined process we may adopt to transactions involving a change in a satellite station's parent.
11. Ultimately, we believe that this proposal to streamline the reauthorization process for television satellite stations is consistent with our efforts to modernize our regulations and will encourage investment in such stations by removing unnecessary constraints on their transferability. We seek comment on the costs and benefits associated with our proposals. For example, how much time, effort, and expense do reauthorization requests usually require now, and what cost savings could be achieved by allowing licensees to certify that there have been no material changes, given that a licensee must exercise due diligence in ascertaining the facts needed to support any such certification? Are there any benefits other than cost savings that are likely to occur from streamlining, and if so, how likely are such benefits to arise from the streamlining proposal we offer for comment? Based on the Commission's experience processing transactions that include satellite station reauthorizations, we do not believe that the proposals herein will impair our, or interested parties', ability to meaningfully review such transactions. We seek comment, however, on any negative consequences of streamlining, including whether this proposal will require applicants or other stakeholders to incur any additional costs beyond what they currently incur. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches. Any party advocating for an alternative approach should be as detailed as possible and should explain the costs and benefits of any recommended approach.
12.
13. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how to streamline the process for reauthorizing television satellite stations when they are assigned or transferred in combination with their previously approved parent station. The potential rule changes discussed in the NPRM stem from a Public Notice issued by the Commission in May 2017 launching an initiative to modernize the Commission's media regulations. Commenters in the proceeding argued that the Commission should streamline the process for demonstrating that a television satellite station remains eligible for satellite status in connection with an assignment or transfer of the station because, they contend, the current process is lengthy, costly, unnecessary, and serves no rational purpose. The proposals upon which the NPRM seeks comment are intended to reduce unnecessary regulation and regulatory burdens that can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.
14. The Commission estimates that the rule changes proposed in this NPRM, if adopted, would reduce the time and expense associated with reauthorizing television satellite stations when they are assigned or transferred in combination with their previously approved parent station. For example, the NPRM proposes that, instead of needing to make the same type of showing that was required for the station's initial satellite authorization, the parties to the proposed transaction could certify that there has been no material change in the underlying circumstances since the current satellite authorization was granted by the Commission. In addition, a complete copy of the written Commission decision granting the current satellite exception would need to be provided with the assignment or transfer application. The NPRM seeks comment
15. The Commission believes that the proposals on which it seeks comment in this NPRM would reduce costs and burdens currently associated with transactions involving television satellite stations, including those that are small entities. As transactions involving television satellite stations usually comprise a very small percentage of the total number of television transactions processed by the Commission and originate from a similarly small segment of the overall industry, the number of small entities impacted would not be substantial for RFA purposes. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. This initial certification will also be published in the
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
22. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
23. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
24. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes management measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of these measures is to constrain recreational catch to established limits and prevent overfishing of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass.
Comments must be received by April 26, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0038, by either of the following methods:
• Go to
• Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields
• Enter or attach your comments.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and other supporting documents for the recreational harvest measures are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The recreational harvest measures document is also accessible via the internet at:
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.
In this rule, NMFS proposes management measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries consistent with the recommendations of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). NMFS is proposing measures that would apply in the Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These measures apply to all Federally permitted party/charter vessels with applicable summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass permits, regardless of where they fish, unless the state in which they land implements measures that are more restrictive. These measures are intended to achieve, but not exceed, the previously established 2018 recreational harvest limits established in a final rule published on December 22, 2017 (82 FR 60682).
For summer flounder, we are proposing to continue the use of conservation equivalency measures for all the states, through the Commission, to determine the most appropriate measures to constrain landings to the 2018 recreational harvest limit. For scup, we are proposing to maintain the measures currently in place for 2017. For black sea bass, we propose to maintain the current minimum size and possession limits, but we propose to remove the current September 22-October 22 closure, which would result in an open season from May 15-December 31. The black sea bass measures are contingent upon the Commission constraining catch to the 2018 recreational harvest limit.
The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively under the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the Council and the Commission, in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder (
The Council process for recommending recreational management measures to NMFS for rulemaking is generically described below. All meetings are open to the public, and the materials utilized during such meetings, as well as any documents created to summarize the meeting results, are public information and posted on the Council's website (
The FMP established monitoring committees for the three fisheries, consisting of representatives from the Commission, the Council, state marine fishery agency representatives from Massachusetts to North Carolina, and NMFS. The FMP's implementing regulations require the monitoring committees to review scientific and other relevant information annually. The objective of this review is to recommend management measures to the Council that will constrain landings within the recreational harvest limits established for the three fisheries for the upcoming fishing year. The FMP limits
The Council's Demersal Species Committee and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board then consider the monitoring committees' recommendations and any public comment in making their recommendations to the Council and the Commission. The Council reviews the recommendations of the Demersal Species Committee, makes its own recommendations, and forwards them to NMFS for review. The Commission similarly adopts recommendations for the states. NMFS is required to review the Council's recommendations to ensure that they are consistent with the targets specified for each species in the FMP and all applicable laws and Executive Orders before ultimately implementing measures for Federal waters. Commission measures are final at the time they are adopted.
Conservation equivalency, as established by Framework Adjustment 2 (July 29, 2001; 66 FR 36208), allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state management target partitioned by the Commission from the coastwide recreational harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures. Framework Adjustment 6 (July 26, 2006; 71 FR 42315) allowed states to form regions for conservation equivalency in order to minimize differences in regulations for anglers fishing in adjacent waters.
The Council and Board annually recommend that either state- or region-specific recreational measures be developed (conservation equivalency) or that coastwide management measures be implemented to ensure that the recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. Even when the Council and Board recommend conservation equivalency, the Council must specify a set of coastwide measures that would apply if conservation equivalency is not approved for use in Federal waters.
When conservation equivalency is recommended, and following confirmation that the proposed state or regional measures developed through the Commission's technical and policy review processes achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at 50 CFR 648.4(b), which requires Federal permit holders to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. In such a situation, Federally permitted summer flounder charter/party permit holders and individuals fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ would then be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures.
In addition, the Council and the Board must recommend precautionary default measures when recommending conservation equivalency. The Commission would require adoption of the precautionary default measures by any state that either does not submit a summer flounder management proposal to the Commission's Summer Flounder Technical Committee, or that submits measures that would exceed the Commission-specified harvest limit for that state.
Much of the conservation equivalency measures development process happens at both the Commission and the individual state level. The selection of appropriate data and analytical techniques for technical review of potential state conservation equivalent measures and the process by which the Commission evaluates and recommends proposed conservation equivalent measures are wholly a function of the Commission and its individual member states. Individuals seeking information regarding the process to develop specific state measures or the Commission process for technical evaluation of proposed measures should contact the marine fisheries agency in the state of interest, the Commission, or both.
Once the states and regions select their final 2018 summer flounder management measures through their respective development, analytical, and review processes and submit them to the Commission, the Commission will conduct further review and evaluation of the submitted proposals, ultimately notifying NMFS as to which proposals have been approved or disapproved. NMFS has no overarching authority in the development of state or Commission management measures but is an equal participant along with all the member states in the review process. NMFS neither approves nor implements individual states' measures but retains the final authority either to approve or to disapprove the use of conservation equivalency in place of the coastwide measures in Federal waters. Additionally, we will publish our determination as a final rule in the
NMFS proposes to implement the Council's and Commission's recommendation to manage the 2018 summer flounder recreational fishery using conservation equivalency. The 2018 summer flounder recreational harvest limit is 4.42 million lb (2,004 mt), an increase from the 2017 harvest limit of 3.77 million lb (1,711 mt). Preliminary estimates indicate that the 2017 recreational landings are 3.10 million lb (1,406 mt). These 2017 projected landings are based on preliminary Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) estimates through Wave 6 (November and December 2017).
The Council and Commission approved conservation equivalency at their joint meeting, held in December 2017. At this meeting, the Board voted to maintain the provisions of Addendum XXVIII to its FMP, which continues regional conservation equivalency for fishing year 2018. The Commission maintained regions that are consistent with those in place since 2016: (1) Massachusetts; (2) Rhode Island; (3) Connecticut and New York; (4) New Jersey; (4) Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; and (5) North Carolina. Rather than liberalize measures up to the 2018 harvest limit, the Board specified that any adjustments to state measures in 2018 should result in no more than a 17-percent liberalization in coastwide harvest relative to the projected 2017 harvest of 3.23 million lb (1,465 mt), the harvest estimate available at the December 2017 meeting. The Board specified this maximum liberalization due to concerns about the status of the summer flounder stock, as well as concerns that harvest estimates for 2017 appeared to be anomalously low in terms of effort and landings, raising concerns that overages in 2018 may occur under larger liberalization if catch and effort rates increase in 2018.
NMFS proposes a suite of non-preferred coastwide measures, consistent with those adopted by the the Council and Board for implementation in 2018. Under conservation equivalency, the cumulative impact of the regional recreational measures should achieve the same constraints on harvest as the non-preferred coastwide measures. For 2018, non-preferred coastwide measures approved by the Council and Board are a 19-inch (48.3-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish per person possession limit, and an open season from May 15-September 15.
The Board reviewed and approved state and region proposals for modifying management at the Commission's February 8, 2018, meeting. With the exception of North Carolina, which intends to maintain status quo measures, all other regions have developed proposals for different 2018 recreational management that would achieve, but not exceed, a 17-percent liberalization of their 2017 harvest.
The 2018 scup recreational harvest limit is 7.37 million lb (3,342 mt) and 2017 recreational landings are currently estimated at 4.68 million lb (2,123 mt). The status quo management measures are a 9-inch (22.9-cm) minimum fish size, 50-fish per person possession limit, and year-round season. The Council recommends maintaining the existing management measures, as no changes are needed to ensure the 2018 recreational harvest limit is not exceeded. As a result, we are proposing to maintain the current scup recreational management measures for 2018.
The 2018 black sea bass recreational harvest limit is 3.66 million lb (1,661 mt), a decrease of nearly 15 percent from the 2017 harvest limit of 4.29 million lb (1,945 mt). The stock biomass remains well above the biomass target and overfishing is not occurring but the overall biomass is expected to decline as the large 2011 year class moves out of the population due to natural and fishing mortality. The Council's Monitoring Committtee and Commission's Technical Committee applied a smoothing technique to preliminary MRIP 2017 recreational landings through Wave 6 (November and December) to account for any anomalous estimates, which results in a 2017 harvest estimate of 3.55 million lb (1,610 mt). This estimated harvest is 17 percent below the 2017 harvest limit and 3 percent below the 2018 harvest limit.
The Council recommends extending the current black sea bass recreational season by removing a closure that occurs from September 22-October 21 and maintaining the current possession limit and minimum size. The following measures would apply to 2018: A 15-fish possession limit, a 12.5-inch (31.75-cm) minimum size, and a season from May 15-December 31.
At its February 2018 meeting, the Commission took final action on Addendum XXX, which establishes state recreational management measures designed to constrain catch to the 2018 recreational harvest limit and regionally allocates black sea bass using a combination of exploitable biomass information from the latest stock assessment and historical harvest. Ultimately, Massachusetts through New York will be allocated 61.35 percent of the harvest limit, New Jersey will receive 30.24 percent, and Delaware through North Carolina will receive 8.41 percent. To increase regional consistency in measures, each region will establish a standard set of measures, with each state in the region afforded the flexibility to adjust its minimum size by up to 1 inch (2.54 cm) and possession limit up to three fish.
If the states do not implement measures to constrain catch to the 2018 recreational harvest limit, the Council recommends a 14-inch (35.56-cm) minimum fish size and a five-fish possession limit with an open season of May 15-September 15. The Council and NMFS expect, based on February 2018 action by the Commission's Black Sea Bass Board, that these default measures will not be necessary. States presented regional proposals to the Technical Committee and Board in March 2018. These measures should constrain catch to the 2018 harvest limit.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of 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.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with an EA. According to the commercial ownership database, 359 for-hire affiliate firms generated revenues from recreational fishing for various species during the 2014-2016 period. All of those business affiliates are categorized as small businesses. It is not possible to derive what proportion of the overall revenues for these for-hire firms came from fishing activities for an individual species. Nevertheless, given the popularity of summer flounder and black sea bass as recreational species in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, revenues generated from these species are likely very important for many of these firms at certain times of the year. The 3 year average (2014-2016) combined gross receipts (all for-hire fishing activity combined) for these small entities was $53,454,121, ranging from less than $10,000 for 92 entities (lowest value $238) to over $1,000,000 for 11 entities (highest value $2.8 million).
The economic impacts of the proposed measures in this action will be affected in part by the specific set of measures implemented at the state level for summer flounder conservation equivalency, and for black sea bass regional management. These impacts are likely to vary by species and by state, and in the case of black sea bass, some states will need to restrict measures or maintain status quo measures, while liberalizations in measures may be allowed for other states.
For summer flounder, this action would waive Federal measures in lieu of state measures designed to reach the 2018 harvest limit. Moderate liberalizations (17 percent relative to 2017 harvest) are expected to be implemented in most states for 2018. Thus, market demand may see a slight to moderate increase in 2018, although this is likely to vary by state depending on each state's current measures and how they choose to modify them in 2018. Under more liberal management measures in 2018, some anglers may transfer effort to summer flounder from other species (
In general, for black sea bass, this action proposes to liberalize measures in Federal waters by removing a 30-day mid-season closure, so long as the states implement measures to constrain catch to the 2018 recreational harvest limit. The current possession limit and minimum size requirement would
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3), and fishermen subject to the possession limit, may fish for summer flounder from May 15 through September 15. This time period may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.102.
(a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2018 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.105, 648.104(b), and 648.106, respectively. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(7), and fishermen subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.145(a), may only possess black sea bass from May 15 through December 31, unless this time period is adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 117 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP), Amendment 106 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP), and to update the species codes for octopus. This proposed rule would prohibit directed fishing for the squid species complex (squids) by Federally permitted groundfish fishermen and specify a squid retention limit in the GOA groundfish fisheries consistent with the existing BSAI squid retention limit, and would make minor corrections to the octopus species codes. This rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the groundfish FMPs, and other applicable laws.
Comments must be received no later than May 11, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0090 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 117 to the BSAI FMP, Amendment 106 to the GOA FMP, and the Environmental
Electronic copies of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses for the BSAI and GOA Groundfish Harvest Specifications for 2018-2019 may be obtained from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address; by email to
Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI and GOA under the BSAI FMP and GOA FMP (collectively the FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
This proposed rule would implement Amendments 117/106 and update the species code for octopus in several tables to 50 CFR part 679. The Council submitted Amendments 117/106 for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and the Notice of Availability (NOA) of these amendments was published in the
In June 2017, the Council voted unanimously to recommend Amendments 117/106 to the FMPs to reclassify squids as non-target ecosystem component species, not in need of conservation and management. Squids are currently classified as target species in the FMPs, though as discussed below, squids are currently only caught incidental to other target fisheries. To implement Amendments 117/106, NMFS proposes regulations to prohibit directed fishing for squids by Federally permitted groundfish fishermen and to specify a squid retention limit in the GOA groundfish fisheries consistent with the existing BSAI squid retention limit. The following sections of this preamble provide (1) groundfish stock classification in FMPs and a brief history of this proposed action; (2) the National Standards (NS) guidance for determining which species require conservation and management; (3) a description of Amendments 117/106 to the groundfish FMPs; and (4) the regulatory changes made by this proposed rule.
Among other requirements, FMPs must comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act NS (16 U.S.C. 1851). NMFS has implemented regulations to provide guidance on the interpretation and application of these NS. Relevant to this proposed rule, the NS guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305(d)(11), (12) and (13) define three classifications for stocks in an FMP: (1) Target stocks in need of conservation and management that fishers seek to catch; (2) non-target stocks in need of conservation and management that are caught incidentally during the pursuit of target stocks; and (3) ecosystem component (EC) species that do not require conservation and management, but may be listed in an FMP in order to achieve ecosystem management objectives.
Under the groundfish FMPs, and harvest limit regulations at § 679.20, NMFS must establish an overfishing level (OFL), an acceptable biological catch (ABC) and a total allowable catch (TAC) for each stock or stock complex (
NMFS establishes the OFL, ABC, and TAC for each species or species group through the annual harvest specification process. For the most recent example of the annual harvest specifications, please see the final 2017/2018 annual harvest specifications (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017 and 82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017).
In 2010, Amendments 96/87 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, established the EC category and designated prohibited species (salmon, steelhead trout, crab, halibut, and herring) and forage fish species (as defined in Table 2c to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.20(i)) as EC species in the groundfish FMPs (75 FR 61639, October 6, 2010). Under the FMPs, EC species are defined as non-target species for which catch specifications (
In 2015, NMFS implemented Amendments 100/91 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, to add grenadiers (family
Squids are currently classified as target species in the groundfish FMPs and directed fishing for squids is allowed. However, TAC levels established annually for squids are too low to support a directed fishery in either the BSAI or GOA. Directed fishing for squids has been closed in the BSAI and GOA since 2011 (76 FR 11139, March 1, 2011). NMFS places squids on bycatch-only status at the beginning of each year through the annual harvest specifications.
Since 2010, the Council's non-target committee, Plan Teams, and Scientific and Statistical Committee have recommended that the Council explore reclassifying squids as EC category species because they do not meet the target species category classification; there is no demand for squid and squid have not been targeted or open to directed fishing in either the BSAI or GOA for many years (see Analysis section 1.2). Further, there is no conservation concern for squids because they are extremely short-lived and highly productive, the current fishing mortality is considered insignificant at a population level, and they are unlikely to be overfished in the absence of a directed fishery (see Analysis section 3.2.5).
Current OFLs and ABCs for squids are based on average catch calculations. While these limits are based on the best available scientific information, they are poorly linked to abundance. Most squids in the BSAI and GOA are associated with the pelagic environment, occurring in the water column. As described in section 3.2 of the Analysis, only three of the fifteen species of squids in the BSAI and GOA are found close to the ocean floor, and most of the available information on the distribution and abundance of squids derives from NMFS's bottom trawl surveys. Even demersal squids reside off the bottom and bottom trawl surveys do not sample squids well, though they better reflect the distribution and abundance of the three species of squids found in association with the bottom than the species in the water column. The bottom trawl survey likely underestimates biomass of squids.
While biomass estimates for squid are limited, ecosystem models can be used to estimate squid densities based upon the food habits and consumption rates of predators of squids. As described below, based on information derived from ecosystem models in the BSAI and GOA, the Council and NMFS believe that catch-based estimates of OFLs and ABCs for squids are highly underestimated (see section 3.2.2 of the Analysis). If surveys were more aligned with squid distribution, NMFS expects that squid biomass estimates, and subsequently squid OFLs and ABCs would be substantially higher (see section 3.2.3 of the Analysis).
Under the current stock classification for squids as a target species, if the total TACs of squids are caught in the BSAI or GOA, retention of squids is prohibited in that management area for the remainder of year. If NMFS projects that incidental catch of squids in directed fisheries for groundfish species will exceed the squids OFL, NMFS may close directed fishing for those groundfish species in a management area to prevent exceeding the squids OFL (see regulations at § 679.20(d)(3)). The GOA squids TAC has not been exceeded, however the BSAI squids TAC was exceeded in 2012, 2014, and 2015. In 2015, for the first time, the BSAI squids catch exceeded the ABC and total catch was approaching the OFL (see Analysis section 3.2.3).
Section 3.2.3 of the Analysis provides a detailed description of incidental catch of squids in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. Historically, the Bering Sea pollock fishery has taken the largest amount of squids relative to the TAC, ABC, and OFL for BSAI squids. Although NMFS has not needed to close the Bering Sea pollock fishery, or other groundfish fisheries in the BSAI or GOA, to directed fishing to prevent exceeding the squids OFL, the Bering Sea pollock fishery has undertaken measures to avoid the incidental harvest of squids and exceeding the BSAI squids OFL.
As described in section 3.2.4 of the Analysis, the Bering Sea pollock fleet has coordinated with NMFS and identified areas of relatively high squids catch. The Bering Sea pollock fleet has voluntarily established specific areas where squids catch is elevated and has moved fishing operations out of these areas they term “squid boxes” prior to NMFS taking action. In the process of moving away from areas of high bycatch of squids, the Bering Sea pollock fleet may inadvertently encounter areas of increased bycatch of other species such as chum salmon, Chinook salmon, and herring for which there is greater conservation concern (see Analysis section 3.3).
Section 302(h)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a council to prepare an FMP for each fishery under its authority that is in need of conservation and management. “Conservation and management” is defined in section 3(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NS guidelines at § 600.305(c) (revised on October 18, 2016, 81 FR 718585), provide direction for determining which stocks will require conservation and management and provide direction to regional councils and NMFS for how to consider these factors in making this determination. Specifically, the guidelines direct regional councils and NMFS to consider a non-exhaustive list of ten factors when deciding whether stocks require conservation and management.
Section 2.2.1 in the Analysis considers each of the ten factors' relevance to squids. The analysis showed that squids are an important component of the marine environment, particularly due to their importance as prey for marine mammals, fish and other squids. However, despite being classified as a target species, there are currently no directed fisheries for squids. Squids are not important to commercial, recreational or subsistence users and the fisheries for BSAI and GOA squids are not important to the National or regional economy. There are no developing fisheries for squids in the EEZ off Alaska nor in waters of the State of Alaska (State). Currently, the State adopts the MRAs established in the Federal fisheries for fisheries in State waters. In the absence of a directed fishery, squids are unlikely to become overfished because they are short-lived, highly productive, and current surveys are considered substantial underestimates of true squids biomass in both the BSAI and GOA. Therefore, maintaining squids in the FMPs for conservation and management is not likely to improve or maintain the condition of the stocks.
In June of 2017, the Council recommended, and NMFS now proposes, Amendments 117/106 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, to reclassify squids as EC category species in the FMPs. Based on a review of the scientific information, and after considering the revised NS guidelines, the Council and NMFS determined that squids are not in need of conservation and management, and that classifying squids in the EC category is an appropriate action.
While the Council determined that squids are not in need of conservation and management as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and after considering the revised NS guidelines, the Council and NMFS determined that there are benefits to retaining squids as an EC species complex in the FMPs,
In contrast to the BSAI where the squid TAC has been exceeded in the past and constrained fishing, the annual catch of squids has not exceeded the GOA TAC, ABC or approached the OFL, and management measures have not constrained GOA groundfish species (see section 3.2.4 of the Analysis). However, due to the lack of directed fisheries for squids in the GOA and the determination that squids are not in need of conservation and management in the GOA, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes Amendment 106 to the GOA FMP to accurately classify the squid complex in the FMP based on the best available information and for consistency with squid management in the BSAI proposed under Amendment 117.
Amendments 117/106 would establish the squids EC species complex in the FMPs to clarify that they are non-target species and would require monitoring the effects of incidental catch of squids in the groundfish fisheries on squid populations. Amendments 117/106 would allow NMFS to prohibit directed fisheries for squids and limit the retention and commercial sale of squids. By virtue of being classified as EC species, catch specifications for squids (
Though the Council determined, and NMFS concurs, that squids are not in need of conservation and management, squid population status and bycatch should be monitored to continually assess vulnerability of squids to the fishery given their importance in the ecosystem. Therefore, the proposed rule retains record keeping and reporting requirements for squid bycatch. The proposed rule would prohibit directed fishing for squids to meet the intent of Amendments 117/106 that squids are not a target species complex. Because the definition of directed fishing at § 679.2 is based on an MRA, the proposed rule would specify a retention limit for squids so that NMFS could implement the prohibition on directed fishing to meet the intent of Amendments 117/106.
In addition to classifying squids as an EC species in the FMPs under Amendments 117/106, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes regulations to limit and monitor the incidental catch of squids. This proposed rule would—
• Prohibit directed fishing for squids in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries;
• maintain recordkeeping and reporting of squids in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries, but modify the regulations for clarity;
• specify a squids retention limit, or MRA, in the GOA Federal groundfish fisheries consistent with the existing BSAI squids MRA of 20 percent; and
• revise the species code tables in the regulations to indicate octopus is a multi-species category by using the plural, octopuses.
To prohibit directed fishing, this proposed rule would revise §§ 679.20(i) and 679.22(i) to prohibit directed fishing for squids at all times in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. This prohibition is consistent with the regulations and management approach for other EC species. With respect to EC species, NMFS prohibits directed fishing for forage fish and grenadiers,
To clarify definitions and recordkeeping and reporting requirements, this proposed rule would add a definition for squids at § 679.2. Recordkeeping and reporting regulations at § 679.5 would not be modified by this proposed rule, but would continue to require a vessel operator or manager in a BSAI or GOA groundfish fishery to record and report retained and discarded squids in logbooks, landing reports, and production reports. This proposed rule would add an instruction to § 679.5 to use the squids species code in Table 2c to 50 CFR part 679 (Table 2c) to record and report squid catch. Table 2c lists the species reporting codes for non-target groundfish FMP species. NMFS would modify Table 2c to add one squid species code and remove the existing squid species code from Table 2a to 50 CFR part 679 (species reporting codes for target groundfish FMP species) because squids would be removed as a target species in the groundfish FMPs. These revisions would maintain NMFS' ability to monitor the catch, retention, and discard of squids.
Section 679.20 provides the general limitations for the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. Because a TAC would no longer be specified for squids, this proposed rule would remove squids from § 679.20(b)(2), which specifies the amount of the TAC that is reserved for inseason management flexibility.
The MRA is the proportion or percentage of retained catch of a species closed for directed fishing (incidental catch species) to the retained catch of a species open for directed fishing (basis species). This proposed rule would move squids out of the basis species category and into the incidental catch species category consistent with the prohibition on directed fishing for squids under this proposed rule. In the GOA, squids are included in the “other species” category (along with sculpins, octopus, and sharks) for MRA purposes under the existing regulations. To specify a separate MRA for squids in the GOA, this proposed rule would remove squids from footnote 6, “other species” in Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 and add squids as an incidental catch species with an MRA of 20 percent. This proposed rule would similarly revise Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679 to remove squids as a basis species in the BSAI and add squids and grenadiers footnote 7 to indicate that forage fish, grenadiers, and squids are all defined in Table 2c. This proposed change would render obsolete, footnote 9 to Table 11 at 50 CFR part 679, and it would be removed.
In developing this proposed rule, the Council and NMFS considered a range of squids MRA percentages: 2 percent, 10 percent, and the current MRA of 20 percent. The Analysis (Table 3-20) provides the percentage range of squids taken incidental to the directed pollock fisheries, by haul, in the GOA and BSAI from 2013 through 2016. The majority of the hauls contained less than two percent squids. Many hauls contained greater than two percent squids, thus an MRA of two percent has the potential to be highly constraining. Likewise, while hauls with greater than 10 percent of squids were infrequent, an MRA of 10 percent also has the potential to constrain the directed fisheries. Section 4.6.2 of the Analysis discusses that a more constraining MRA is more likely to increase discards of dead squids rather than discourage targeting. There are no conservation concerns for squids. Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes specifying an MRA for squids of 20 percent in the GOA groundfish fisheries consistent with the existing MRA for squids in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
This proposed rule would also correct a minor technical inaccuracy in the species code for octopus. The species code for octopus in the existing regulations does not reflect the diversity of octopus species in the BSAI and GOA and refers to only one species—North Pacific octopus. Several species of octopuses occur in the BSAI and GOA. To accurately reflect the diversity of octopuses taken in the groundfish fisheries, this proposed rule would revise species code 870 in Table 2a to 50 CFR part 679 to indicate multiple species by using the plural “octopuses.” This proposed rule would also revise Table 10 to 50 CFR part 679 to update
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 117 to the BSAI FMP, Amendment 106 to the GOA FMP, other provisions of 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 the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An RIR was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
This IRFA was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to describe the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. An IRFA describes why this action is being proposed; the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule; the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply; any projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules; and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Descriptions of this proposed rule, its purpose, and the legal basis are contained earlier in this preamble and are not repeated here.
This proposed rule would directly regulate any vessel operator harvesting squids in the Federally managed groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA. The thresholds applied to determine if an entity or group of entities are “small” under the RFA depend on the industry classification for the entity or entities. Businesses classified as primarily engaged in commercial fishing are considered small entities if they have combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11.0 million for all affiliated operations worldwide (81 FR 4469; January 26, 2016). The most recent estimates of the number of fishing vessels participating in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries that are small entities are provided in Table 2 in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses for the BSAI and GOA Harvest Specifications for 2018-2019 (see
The only potential adverse economic impact that has been identified for this proposed rule is that vessel owners or operators who may wish to conduct directed fishing for squids in the future, and who would wish to retain more squids than they would be allowed to retain under the 20 percent MRA, would not be able to do so. This potential adverse impact would not affect any current participants relative to opportunities available to them in recent years, because directed fishing for squid has been closed in the BSAI and GOA since 2011. Therefore, no current participants would lose an economic opportunity that is available to them today or has been available to them in recent years.
The degree to which this proposed rule could limit current fishery permit holders' future economic activity in the BSAI or GOA could be viewed as an adverse impact of this proposed rule. This adverse economic impact could affect any future participant in these groundfish fisheries. Therefore, all fishing vessels currently participating in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries that are small entities could be adversely impacted by this proposed rule in the future. However, based on the very limited number of vessel operators who have expressed interest in conducting directed fishing for squids in the past, the actual number of small entities that would be adversely impacted by this proposed rule is likely zero or very few. Vessel operators may continue to catch and retain squids in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries as long as they maintain their catch within the 20 percent MRA.
For operators of vessels currently participating in these fisheries, the economic impacts of this proposed rule are primarily beneficial or neutral. Removing squids from the BSAI target species category would remove the squids TAC from inclusion in the 2 million mt optimum yield (OY) cap in the BSAI. The amount of the OY cap that has been reserved for squids would be available to increase the TAC limit or limits for other BSAI target species. This effect would benefit participants in the BSAI fisheries that experience TAC increases relative to what the TACs would have been without this proposed rule. Some of the entities that experience benefits from increased TACs in the future may be small entities. The effects on target species TACs would be neutral for the GOA fisheries, as the OY has not constrained TACs in the GOA to date. Therefore, removing the squids TAC in the GOA will not allow for an increase in the TAC for another target species.
For participants in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, moving squids from the target species category to the EC category will remove the squid OFL as a potential constraint for the Bering Sea pollock fishery, thereby increasing the flexibility of the Bering Sea pollock fishery participants to focus on minimizing the bycatch of salmon and other PSC in the pollock fisheries. Removing this constraint would reduce the costs associated with trying to simultaneously minimize the incidental catch of squid and the incidental catch of salmon and other PSC. However, none of the directly regulated entities in the Bering Sea pollock fishery are considered small entities because all of them are affiliated through either ownership or membership in a cooperative and, when considered together, have annual gross receipts that exceed $11.0 million annually.
Under this proposed rule, requirements for recording and reporting the catch, discard, and production of squid in logbooks or on
No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed rule and existing Federal rules has been identified.
The Council and NMFS considered three alternatives. Among the three alternatives, Alternative 2 Option 3 (the preferred alternative) provides the most economic benefits to current participants in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. The primary economic benefit of this proposed rule is to reduce the potential constraints imposed by the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for squids on BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. Among the three options considered for the squids MRA (20 percent, 10 percent, and 2 percent), the 20 percent MRA that was selected minimizes the economic impact on any fishing vessel that is a small entity because it provides the greatest opportunity to retain squid as incidental catch in other groundfish fisheries.
Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and would continue to classify squids as target species in the groundfish FMPs. OFLs, ABCs, and TACs would continue to be set for squids as a species group in both the BSAI and GOA. Relative to Alternative 2, Alternative 1 could be considered less beneficial to small entities because all catch specifications would need to be maintained, and current constraints on the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries would continue. However, Alternative 2 (the proposed rule) also could be considered more restrictive to small entities than Alternative 1 if the prohibition on directed fishing for squids under the proposed rule limits future participants' ability to conduct directed fishing for squids more so than would occur under the status quo. Alternative 1 allows NMFS to determine annually whether to open a directed fishery for squids.
Alternative 2 would classify squids in the BSAI and GOA in the EC category and implement a regulation prohibiting directed fishing for squids that could only be revised through subsequent rulemaking. However, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes that the benefits of the proposed rule to current fishery participants, including small entities, outweigh the potential future adverse impacts of the prohibition against directed fishing for squids. In addition, this provision can be re-evaluated by the Council and NMFS in the future if fishery participants want to develop directed fisheries for squids.
Alternative 3 would classify squids in the groundfish FMPs as “non-target” species, in which case OFLs and ABCs would still be established but TAC would no longer be specified. Relative to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is less beneficial to small entities because certain catch specifications and their associated fishery constraints would still need to be maintained. When comparing Alternatives 1 and 3, Alternative 3 would remove the requirement for setting TACs; however, the current potential constraints on other groundfish fisheries if an OFL or ABC for squids were achieved would continue, and therefore Alternative 3 is only slightly more beneficial than Alternative 1 to small entities.
This proposed rule refers to collection-of-information (“recordkeeping and reporting”) requirements approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The relevant information collections are approved under OMB control number 0648-0213 (Alaska Region Logbook Family of Forms) and OMB control number 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System). The proposed rule would make minor revisions to these information collection requirements to clarify the location of the species code for squids in the tables to 50 CFR part 679. These revisions do not change the public reporting burden of the approved information collections or require revisions to the currently approved supporting statements for these collections.
Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS Alaska Region at the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(a) * * *
(3)
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) * * *
(F)
(4) * * *
(vi) * * *
(E)
(b) * * *
(2)
(i)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i)
United States African Development Foundation.
Notice of meeting.
The US African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.
The meeting date is Tuesday, May 01, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.
Marie-Cécile Groelsema, 202-233-8883.
Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces a series of teleconference and/or web conference meetings regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing (GRRH) program, which are scheduled to occur during 2018 and 2019. This Notice also outlines suggested discussion topics for the meetings and is intended to notify the general public of their opportunity to participate in the teleconference and/or web conference meetings.
See
Any member of the public wishing to register for the calls and obtain the call-in number, access code, web link and other information for any of the public teleconference and/or web conference meetings may contact Monica Cole, Financial and Loan Analyst, at: (202) 720-1251, fax: (844) 875-8075, or email:
The objectives of this series of teleconferences are as follows:
• Enhance the effectiveness of the Section 538 GRRH program.
• Update industry participants and Rural Housing Service (RHS) staff on developments involving the Section 538 GRRH program.
• Enhance RHS' awareness of the market and other forces that impact the Section 538 GRRH program.
Topics to be discussed could include, but will not be limited to, the following:
• Updates on USDA's Section 538 GRRH program activities.
• Perspectives on the current state of debt financing and its impact on the Section 538 GRRH program.
• Enhancing the use of Section 538 GRRH program financing with the transfer and/or preservation of Section 515 developments.
• The impact of the Low Income Housing Tax Credits program changes on Section 538 GRRH program financing.
The dates and times for the teleconference and/or web conference meetings will be announced via email to parties registered as described below.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, April 13, 2018 from 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Central time. The Committee will hear testimony as part of their current study on civil rights and school funding.
The meeting will take place on Friday, April 13, 2018 from 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Central time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number (audio only) and web access link (visual only). Please use both the call in number and the web access link in order to fully access the meeting.
An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council in conjunction with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 30, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. For agenda details, see
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible).
Consider approval of the Summer Flounder Commercial Issues Amendment draft public hearing document
Review alternatives for Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Framework/Addendum on recreational issues; Review Black Sea Bass February Recreational Fishery Harvest
Review and consider approval of Public Information Document/Scoping Document for Allocation Amendment
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Fishery Data for Stock Assessment Working Group to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Fishery Data for Stock Assessment Working Group will start the meeting with welcoming and introductions as this is the first meeting of this working group. The group will review working group objectives and timeline. They will begin discussions on how the working group can meet the objective of how fishery dependent data can be used to inform stock abundance. The group will also identify work to address the four main deliverables. Other business may be discussed if necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings and hearings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a meeting of its Archipelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team (FEP) and the Fishery Data Collection and Research Committee—Technical Committee (FDCRC-TC). The Archipelagic FEP Team will review the fishery performance, ecosystem consideration, and data integration chapter of the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for the Western Pacific region, conduct the evaluation of the 2017 catches to the 2017 Annual Catch Limits (ACL) for the coral reef, crustacean, and Territory bottomfish fisheries, review of the ecosystem component action, aquaculture, and crustacean Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) review. The FDCRC-TC will review the status of the data collection improvement efforts in the Western Pacific region, progress on the Pacific Island Fisheries Research Program, discuss the collection of fisheries data for management unit species (MUS) and Ecosystem Component Species (ECS), and the implementation of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)—Pacific Islands Regional Implementation Plan (PIRIP).
The Archipelagic FEP Team meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on April 30—May 1, 2018. The FDCRC-TC will be held on May 2-3, 2018. For specific times and agendas, see
The FEP Team and FDCRC-TC meetings will be held at the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Conference Room, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; phone: (808) 522-8220.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; phone: (808) 522-8220.
Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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 Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in Charleston, SC.
The SSC will meet on Tuesday, May 1, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, May 2, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and Thursday, May 3, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Town & Country Inn and Suites, 2008 Savannah Hwy., Charleston, SC 29407; phone: (800) 334-6660 or (843) 571-1000; fax: (843) 766-9444.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The following agenda items will be discussed by the SSC during the meeting:
1. SSC member orientation the morning of May 1.
2. Review the recommendations of the Blueline Tilefish Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Workgroup and recommend an ABC for Blueline Tilefish from Cape Hatteras, NC to the NC/VA border.
3. Review the recommendations of the Red Snapper ABC Workgroup and recommend a method for determining an ABC for Red Snapper.
4. Receive an update on ongoing research from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
5. Review the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 56 Black Sea Bass standard stock assessment and provide fishing level recommendations.
6. Review and provide comment on changes and decisions made concerning the Comprehensive ABC Control Rule Amendment during the March Council meeting.
7. Review the SEDAR 55 Vermilion Snapper standard stock assessment and provide fishing level recommendations.
8. Receive updates and progress reports on ongoing Council amendments and activities.
9. Review and provide comment on regulations identified by the Council as being unneeded, outdated, or ineffective and that can be removed from current Fishery Management Plans.
10. Review and comment on the appropriateness of the data used in the Wreckfish Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) review.
11. Review the most recent projections and available information for Golden Tilefish and recommend a revised ABC as appropriate.
12. Receive updates on SEDAR projects, including the Cobia Stock Identification Workshop; approve the terms of reference, schedule, and identify participants for the Yellowtail Snapper, Cobia, Scamp, and King Mackerel assessments; and recommend assessment priorities for 2020 and beyond.
13. Identify stocks to include as key stocks under the Long-Term Assessment Approach discussed at the October 2017 meeting; review and comment on the information available between assessments and the proposed interim analysis.
14. Review the SSC's Socio-Economic Panel report.
15. Elect a new chair and vice-chair.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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.
Written comment on SSC agenda topics is to be distributed to the Committee through the Council office, similar to all other briefing materials. Written comment to be considered by the SSC shall be provided to the Council office no later than one week prior to an
Multiple opportunities for comment on agenda items will be provided during SSC meetings. Open comment periods will be provided at the start of the meeting and near the conclusion. Those interested in providing comment should indicate such in the manner requested by the Chair, who will then recognize individuals to provide comment.
Additional opportunities for comment on specific agenda items will be provided, as each item is discussed, between initial presentations and SSC discussion. Those interested in providing comment should indicate such in the manner requested by the Chair, who will then recognize individuals to provide comment. All comments are part of the record of the meeting.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC 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 meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the following Citizen Science Advisory Panel Action Teams: Projects/Topics Management; Communication/Outreach/Education; and Data Management via webinar.
The Projects/Topics Management Team will be held on Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2 p.m.; Communication/Outreach/Education Team on Friday, April 27, 2018 at 10 a.m.; and Data Management Team on Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1 p.m. Each 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
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 Volunteers, Data Management, Projects/Topics Management, Finance, and Communication/Outreach/Education to develop program policies and operations for the Council's Citizen Science Program.
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 SEDAR 61 Data Webinar for Gulf of Mexico red grouper.
The SEDAR 61 stock assessment process for Gulf of Mexico red grouper will consist of an In-person Workshop, and a series of data and assessment webinars. See
The SEDAR 61 Data Webinar will be held May 1, 2018, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment
The items of discussion during the Data Webinar are as follows:
Panelists will review the data sets being considered for the assessment and discuss initial modeling efforts.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 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; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) for authorization to take, by harassment, marine mammals incidental to constructing an integrated liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Cook Inlet, Alaska, beginning November 2019 and continuing through October 2024. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the AGDC's request for regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the AGDC's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than May 11, 2018.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the AGDC's application may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
The use of sound sources such as those described in the application (
On April 18, 2017, NMFS received an application from the AGDC requesting authorization to take a small number of humpback whale, beluga whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, and harbor seal, by Level B harassment, incidental to
AGDC proposes to construct facilities to transport and offload LNG in Cook Inlet, AK, for export. The Project activities include:
• Construction of the proposed Marine Terminal in Cook Inlet, including construction of a temporary Material Offloading Facility (MOF) and a permanent Product Loading Facility (PLF).
• Construction of the Mainline across Cook Inlet, including the potential construction of a Mainline MOF on the west side of Cook Inlet.
Components of proposed construction activities in Cook Inlet that have the potential to expose marine mammals to received acoustic levels that could result in take include:
• Vibratory and impact pile driving associated with MOF and PLF construction.
• Anchor handling associated with pipelay across the Cook Inlet.
For pile driving over the project duration, a total of 130 48-inch (-in) and 201 60-in steel piles would be installed using impact hammers for the PLF construction. A total of 7 24-in and 28 48-in steel piles would be installed using impact hammers and 66 18-in and 35 60-in steel piles using vibratory hammers for the MOF construction. In addition, approximately 6,700 feet and 670 feet of sheet pile would be installed using a vibratory and impact hammer, respectively, for the MOF construction.
For anchor handling, a total of 5.75 and 13.25 hours of activities are assessed for mooring/pipe trenching and pipelaying in Seasons 3 and 4, respectively.
The LNG facility construction activities are anticipated to begin in late 2019 and take approximately four years to complete. However, the rule will cover a five-year period to encompass additional time should delays occur.
A suite of proposed mitigation and monitoring measures for marine mammals that could potentially be taken during in-water construction activities includes: (1) Establishing and monitoring Level A and Level B zones with protected species observers (PSOs), (2) establishing a 100-m shutdown zone and implementing shutdown measures when an animal is detected to approaching the shutdown zone, and (3) limiting pile driving activities to daylight hours only.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the AGDC's request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public workshop to provide a forum for fishermen, managers, and scientists from the United States and European Union to interact and discuss possible solutions to the complex problems associated with the small-mesh pelagic fisheries in their respective regions.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 1, 2018 through Thursday, May 3, 2018. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held at: the Beauport Hotel Gloucester, 55 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, telephone: (844) 282-0008.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The workshop will involve a combination of presentations, group discussions, and field trips designed to give participants first-hand knowledge of local fishery operations and issues. A detailed agenda and additional information are available on the Council's website at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIA”) in OMB within 30 days of this notice's publication by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control Nos. 3038-0052 or 3038-0074.”
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control Nos. 3038-0052 or 3038-0074.”
•
• By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or
• Through the Commission's website at
Please submit your comments using only one method. A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
David Steinberg, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 202-418-5102 or
In June 2012, the Commission implemented core principles and other requirements for DCMs (“DCM Final Rules”).
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) added new section 5h to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) to impose requirements concerning the registration and operation of swap execution facilities (“SEFs”), which the Commission has incorporated in part 37 of its regulations. These information collections are needed for the Commission to ensure that SEFs comply with these requirements. Among other requirements, part 37 of the Commission's regulations imposes SEF registration requirements for a trading platform or system, obligates SEFs to provide transaction confirmations to swap counterparties, and requires SEFs to comply with 15 core principles. Collection 3038-0074 was created in response to the part 37 regulatory requirements for SEFs.
In September 2016, the Commission published a 30-Day Notice of Intent to Renew Collection 3038-0074 (30-Day Renewal Notice) and stated that 23 SEFs were registered with the Commission.
In January 2018, the Commission adopted regulation 9.11(b)(3)(ii) requiring a DCM or SEF (collectively, “exchange”) to include two additional elements in the disciplinary or access denial notice action provided to the National Futures Association.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981.
The regulations require no new startup or operations and maintenance costs.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of the inventions listed below, assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email
The following patent is available for licensing: Patent No. 9,927,482 (Navy Case No. 200248): ELECTROSTATIC PROTECTION TESTING, MONITORING, AND HUMAN-MACHINE VISUAL INTERFACE SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USE.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of the inventions listed below, assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
Requests for copies of the patent applications cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email
The following patent application is available for licensing: Patent Application No. 62/632,550 (Navy Case No. 200456): HYPER-COMPACT ELECTRIC ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE DRIVETRAIN AND CONVERSION KIT.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
On October 19, 2017, Enbridge—Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-10-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas facilities. The proposed project is known as the TX—LA Markets Project (Project), and would involve modifications to Texas Eastern's existing Gillis Compressor Station in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana.
On October 31, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The proposed modifications to the Gillis Compressor Station in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana would consist of the installation of two gas cooling bays and installation of two new impellers for the existing compressor units.
On December 6, 2017, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
On April 5, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-133-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether Illinois Power Resources Generating, LLC's rates for Reactive Service may be unjust and unreasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-133-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-133-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that on March 13, 2018, Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC filed a petition for a new two-year waiver of the requirement that an independent certified public accountant attest to the conformity of the content set out in Black Hills Shoshone's FERC Form No. 2-A, reflecting activity for 2017.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Data Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs” (EPA ICR No.1613.06, OMB Control No.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Dave Sosnowski, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4823; fax number: 734-214-4052; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
• An annual report providing general program operating data and summary statistics, addressing the program's current design and coverage, a summary of testing data, enforcement program efforts, quality assurance and quality control efforts, and other miscellaneous information allowing for an assessment of the program's relative effectiveness; and
• A biennial report on any changes to the program over the two-year period and the impact of such changes, including any deficiencies discovered and corrections made or planned.
General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which a program misses, meets, or exceeds the emission reductions committed to in the state's approved SIP, which, in turn, must meet or exceed the minimum emission reductions expected from the relevant performance standard, as promulgated under 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, in response to requirements established in section 182 of the Clean Air Act. This information is used by EPA to determine a program's progress toward meeting requirements under 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, and to provide background information in support of program evaluations. Additional information regarding the current renewal of this ICR as well as previous renewals can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707.
The following statistics and responses apply to the ICR proposed for renewal.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Safer Choice program will hold its third Safer Choice Partner & Stakeholder Summit. Safer Choice partners with manufacturers to label cleaning and other products so consumers and commercial buyers can easily find products with chemical ingredients that are safer for people and the environment. The Summit provides an opportunity for partners, purchasers, retailers, NGOs, trade associations, chemical manufacturers, and other interested stakeholders to collaborate on exploring issues and developing solutions that can advance Safer Choice. The meeting will include informational and breakout sessions, with a focus on dialogue and active participation.
The Safer Choice Partner & Stakeholder Summit 2018 will be held on May 14, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the technical person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, 201 Waterfront Street, Oxon Hill, MD 20745.
Tony Thompson, Chemistry, Economics and Sustainable Strategies Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-2296; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a Safer Choice program partner or stakeholder. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
EPA's mission is to protect the health of people and the environment. To further that mission, EPA certifies cleaning and other products so consumer and commercial buyers can easily find ones made with chemical ingredients that are safer for people and the environment. The Summit provides an opportunity to explore topics of importance to stakeholders and the program and a forum for dialogue on ways to continue to improve the program, advance safer chemistry, and increase awareness of the Safer Choice label.
Registration—To attend the Summit, you may register online here:
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), (EPA ICR No. 1049.14, OMB Control No. 2050-0046) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0549, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency Management, (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8019; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, requires the person in charge of a vessel to immediately notify the NRC of an oil spill into U.S. navigable waters if the spill causes a sheen, violates applicable water quality standards, or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines.
The reporting of a hazardous substance release that is at or above the substance's RQ allows the Federal government to determine whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects to public health or welfare or the environment. Likewise, the reporting of oil spills allows the Federal government to determine whether cleaning up the oil spill is necessary to mitigate or prevent damage to public health or welfare or the environment. The hazardous substance and oil release information collected under CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 also is available to EPA program offices and other Federal agencies that use the information to evaluate the potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or sources, or improved emergency response planning. Release notification information, which is stored in the national Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) data base, is available to state and local government authorities as well as the general public. State and local government authorities and the regulated community use release information for purposes of local emergency response planning. Members of the general public, who have access to release information through the Freedom of Information Act, may request release information for purposes of maintaining an awareness of what types of releases are occurring in different localities and what actions, if any, are being taken to protect public health and welfare and the environment. ERNS fact sheets, which provide summary and statistical information about hazardous substance and oil release notifications, also are available to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the April and May meetings of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). At the April meeting, which will be conducted by conference call, the NANC will consider a recommendation from its Call Authentication Trust Anchor Issues Working Group. At the May meeting, the NANC will consider recommendations from the Toll Free Numbering Modernization Issues Working Group and the Nationwide Number Portability Issues Working Group. In addition, the NANC will continue its discussions on how to modernize and foster more efficient number administration in the United States. The NANC meetings are open to the public. The FCC will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will also provide audio coverage of the meeting. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Members of the public may submit comments to the NANC in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, ECFS, at
More information about the NANC is available at
Friday, April 27, 2018, 9:30 a.m. and May 23, 2018, 9:30 a.m.
Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Carmell Weathers, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room 5-C162, Washington, DC 20554.
Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 18-327 released March 30, 2018. The complete text in this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the internet at
*The Agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chairman with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 11, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Section 17.4 includes third party disclosure requirements. Specifically, Section 17.4 requires the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to register the structure with the Commission. This includes those structures used as part of the stations licensed by the Commission for the transmission of radio energy, or to be used as part of a cable television head-end system. If a Federal Government antenna structure is to be used by a Commission licensee, the structure must be registered with the Commission. Section 17.4(f) provides that antenna structure owners shall immediately provide to all tenant licensees and permittees notification that the structure has been registered. This may be done by providing either a copy of Form 854R or a link to the FCC antenna structure registration website. This notification may be done electronically or via paper mail.
Section 17.4(g) requires antenna structure owners to display the Antenna Structure Registration Number in a conspicuous place that is readily visible near the base of the antenna. This rule specifically requires that the Antenna Structure Number be displayed so that it is conspicuously visible and legible from the publicly accessible area nearest the base of the antenna structure along the publicly accessible roadway or path. Where an antenna structure is surrounded by a perimeter fence, or where the point of access includes an access gate, the Antenna Structure Registration Number should be posted on the perimeter fence or access gate. Where multiple antenna structures having separate Antenna Structure Registration Numbers are located within a single fenced area, the Antenna Structure Registration Numbers must be posted both on the perimeter fence or access gate and near the base of each antenna structure. If the base of the antenna structure has more than one point of access, the rule requires that the Antenna Structure Registration Number be posted so that it is visible at the publicly accessible area nearest each such point of access. The registration number is issued to identify antenna structure owners in order to enforce the Congressionally-mandated provisions related to the owners.
Sections 17.48 and 17.49 contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Section 17.48(a) requires that antenna structure owners immediately report outages of top steady burning lights or flashing antenna structure lights to the FAA, if not corrected within 30 minutes. Upon receipt of the outage notification, the FAA will issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which notifies aircraft of the outage. Consistent with FAA requirements, if a lighting outage cannot be repaired within the FAA's original NOTAM period, Section 17.48(a) further requires the antenna structure owner to notify the FAA of that fact and provide any needed updates to its estimated return-to-service date. The rule also requires antenna structure owners to continue to provide these updates to the FAA every NOTAM period until its lights are repaired.
Section 17.49 requires antenna structure owners to maintain a record of observed or otherwise known extinguishments or improper functioning of structure lights for two years and provide the records to the Commission upon request.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 11, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
On April 27, 2012, the Commission released the Empowering Consumers to Prevent and Detect Billing for Unauthorized Charges (“Cramming”), Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 11-116, CG Docket No. 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, FCC 12-42 (Cramming Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); published at 77 FR 30972, May 24, 2012, which determined that additional rules are needed to help consumers prevent and detect the placement of unauthorized charges on their telephone bills, an unlawful and fraudulent practice commonly referred to as “cramming.”
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 11, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
On July 28, 2011, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, document FCC 11-118, published at 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011, and at 76 FR 47476, August 5, 2011 (VRS Certification Order), adopting final and interim rules—designed to help prevent fraud and abuse, and ensure quality service, in the provision of internet-based forms of Telecommunications Relay Services (iTRS). The VRS Certification Order amended the Commission's process for certifying internet-based TRS (iTRS) providers as eligible for payment from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) for their provision of iTRS to ensure that iTRS providers receiving certification are qualified to provide iTRS in compliance with the Commission's rules and to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse through improved oversight of such providers.
On October 17, 2011, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 11-155, published at 76 FR 67070, October 31, 2011 (VRS Certification Reconsideration Order), modifying two aspects of information collection requirements contained in the VRS Certification Order.
The VRS Certification Order as modified by the VRS Certification Reconsideration contains information collection requirements with respect to the following eight requirements, all of which are intended to ensure that providers are qualified to provide iTRS in compliance with the Commission's rules with no or minimal service interruption.
(A) Required Evidence for Submission for Eligibility Certification. Each potential iTRS provider must submit full and detailed information in its application for certification that shows its ability to comply with the Commission's rules. Each applicant must provide a detailed description of how it will meet all non-waived mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS offered, including documentary and other evidence.
In the case of VRS, such documentary and other evidence shall also demonstrate that the applicant leases, licenses or has acquired its own facilities and operates such facilities associated with TRS call centers and employs communications assistants, on a full or part-time basis, to staff such call centers at the date of the application. Such evidence shall include but not be limited to:
1. For VRS applicants operating five or fewer call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center;
2. For VRS applicants operating more than five call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for a representative sampling of five call centers;
3. For VRS applicants operating call centers outside of the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center;
4. For all applicants, a list of individuals or entities that hold at least a 10 percent equity interest in the applicant, have the power to vote 10 percent or more of the securities of the applicant, or exercise de jure or de facto control over the applicant, a description of the applicant's organizational structure, and the names of its executives, officers, members of its board of directors, general partners (in the case of a partnership), and managing members (in the case of a limited liability company);
5. For all applicants, a list of the number of applicant's full-time and part-time employees involved in TRS operations, including and divided by the following positions: Executives and officers; video phone installers (in the case of VRS), communications assistants, and persons involved in marketing and sponsorship activities;
6. Where applicable, a description of the call center infrastructure, and for all core call center functions (automatic call distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS fund, and registration) a statement whether such equipment is owned, leased or licensed (and from whom if leased or licensed) and proofs of purchase, leases or license agreements, including a complete copy of any lease or license agreement for automatic call distribution;
7. For all applicants, copies of employment agreements for all of the provider's employees directly involved in TRS operations, executives and communications assistants, and a list of names of employees directly involved in TRS operations need not be submitted with the application, but must be retained by the applicant and submitted to the Commission upon request; and
8. For all applicants, a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to internet-based TRS, including a description of any associated written agreements; copies of all such arrangements and agreements must be retained by the applicant for three years from the date of the application, and submitted to the Commission upon request.
(B) Submission of Annual Report. Providers submit annual reports that include updates to the information listed under Section A above or certify that there are no changes to the information listed under Section A above.
(C) Requiring Providers to Seek Prior Authorization of Voluntary Interruption of Service. A VRS provider seeking to voluntarily interrupt service for a period of 30 minutes or more in duration must first obtain Commission authorization by submitting a written request to the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) at least 60 days prior to any planned service interruption, with detailed information of:
(i) Its justification for such interruption;
(ii) Its plan to notify customers about the impending interruption; and
(iii) Its plans for resuming service, so as to minimize the impact of such disruption on consumers through a smooth transition of temporary service to another provider, and restoration of its service at the completion of such interruption.
(D) Reporting of Unforeseen Service Interruptions. With respect to brief, unforeseen service interruptions or in the event of a VRS provider's voluntary service interruption of less than 30 minutes in duration, the affected provider must submit a written notification to CGB within two business days of the commencement of the service interruption, with an explanation of when and how the provider has restored service or the provider's plan to do so imminently. In the event the provider has not restored service at the time such report is filed, the provider must submit a second report within two business days of the restoration of service with an explanation of when and how the provider has restored service.
(E) Applicant Certifying Under Penalty of Perjury for Certification Application. The chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or
(F) Certified Provider Certifying Under Penalty of Perjury for Annual Compliance Filings. The CEO, CFO, or other senior executive of an iTRS provider with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, when submitting an annual compliance report under 47 CFR 64.606(g), must certify under penalty of perjury that all information required under the Commission's rules and orders has been provided and all statements of fact, as well as all documentation contained in the annual compliance report submission, are true, accurate, and complete.
(G) Notification of Service Cessation. An applicant for certification must give
(H) Notification on website. A provider must provide notification of temporary service outages to consumers on an accessible website, and the provider must ensure that the information regarding service status is updated on its website in a timely manner.
On June 10, 2013, the Commission made permanent the interim rule adopted in the VRS Certification Order requiring all applicants and providers of iTRS to certify, under penalty of perjury, that their certification applications and annual compliance reports are truthful, accurate, and complete.
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 13-82, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of special meeting.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is given that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) proposes the establishment of a new system of records, BGFRS-40, entitled “FRB—Board Subscription Services.” The new system of records, BGFRS-40, will maintain subscription-related information regarding individuals who subscribe to Board publications. The main publication that the Board provides is the Federal Reserve Regulatory Service (FRRS), which is a compilation of the statutes administered by the Board along with regulations, interpretations, policy statements, rulings, and opinions issued by the Board and its staff. The FRRS also includes select regulations issued by other agencies that are relevant to the Board's responsibilities. The Board also provides subscriptions to other publications such as general publications, reports to Congress, and economic research and data.
To date, the Board has operated the subscription services itself and stored the data by year rather than by name or personal identifier. Going forward, the Board will contract the subscription services for the FRRS to a vendor, who will maintain the files (both electronic and in paper) in a manner that customarily allows the files to be accessed by name or personal identifier, thus necessitating this new system of records. After the transition of the FRRS subscription services to the vendor, the Board will continue to maintain its old historical FRRS subscription materials for the appropriate record retention period. In addition, the Board will continue to operate the subscription services for the other publications (
Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2018.
This new system of records will become applicable May 11, 2018, without further notice, unless comments dictate otherwise.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Privacy Act, requires a 30-day period prior to publication in the
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
All public comments will be made available on the Board's website at
David B. Husband, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 530-6270, or
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of this system of records is being filed with the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
BGFRS-40, “FRB—Board Subscription Services”
Unclassified.
The vendor will maintain FRRS subscription materials in paper and electronic form. The vendor is located at 101 Fry Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. The Board will maintain historical FRRS subscription records and any new FRRS records created and transmitted by the vendor to the Board (such as the monthly call reports).
The Board will also maintain the subscription information for other Board publications. Paper records will be stored in file folders and electronic records will be stored on the Board's network. Records will be maintained at the Board's central offices located at: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Both managers are located at the Board's central offices in Washington, DC. The manager for the FRRS is Mike Budzinski, Manager, Editing, Office of Board Members, (202) 452-3262,
12 U.S.C. 244.
The Board is maintaining these records to allow individuals to subscribe to Board publications. The main publication the Board provides is the Federal Reserve Regulatory Service (FRRS), a publication that compiles the statutes administered by the Board along with regulations, interpretations, policy statements, rulings, and opinions issued by the Board and its staff as well as select regulations issued by other agencies that are relevant to the Board's responsibilities. The Board also makes available other publications such as general publications, reports to Congress, and economic research and data.
Persons who subscribe to the FRRS or create an account for the purpose of subscribing to the FRRS and persons
The Board Subscription Services system covers records related to the ordering and fulfillment of orders for the FRRS and other Board publications, such as economic research and data, general publications, and reports to Congress. The information collected for all publications (including the FRRS) includes the subscriber's name, company name or affiliation (if applicable), shipping address, order type, email address, and phone number. For Board publications other than the FRRS, the Board also collects (in paper form) the payment type (check, money order, credit card) and, if the order is by credit card, the relevant credit card information.
In addition, subscriptions for the FRRS also include the FRRS account information (log-in and password information), the billing address, order history, and fulfillment information (shipping and delivery instructions). The Board's vendor will also provide the Board with a monthly report on FRRS subscriptions. The monthly report will record FRRS subscription revenue and selected subscriber and fulfillment information of current FRRS subscribers, including the individual subscriber's name, company name (if applicable), email address, and order type. The Board will also retain historical FRRS subscription and payment information from when the Board operated the FRRS subscription for the appropriate six-year record retention period.
The subscriber to the publication or the FRRS account holder provides the relevant information.
General routine uses, A, C, D, and G, apply to this system. These general routine uses are located at
1.
2.
Paper records in this system are stored in file folders with access limited to staff with a need to know. Electronic records are stored on a secure server.
Paper and electronic records can be retrieved by name or other identifying aspects.
The retention period for the records in this system is six years. Records will be disposed of at the end of their retention periods, subject to an annual close-out.
Board staff are restricted to the data that is required in the performances of their duties. This is accomplished through user roles, which provide differential access levels to users based on their official duties and need-to-know. Only Board staff whose official duties require such access may view the subscription and fulfillment records. Electronic records are password protected and paper records are stored in locked file cabinets.
Only select Board and vendor staff will have access to the FRRS subscriber and fulfillment information provided in the monthly FRRS vendor-provided report. Authorized Board staff will access the monthly FRRS report through an encrypted connection.
The Privacy Act allows individuals the right to access records maintained about them in a Board system of records. Your request for access must: (1) Contain a statement that it is made pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974; (2) provide either the name of the Board system of records expected to contain the record requested or a concise description of the system of records; (3) provide the information necessary to verify your identity; and (4) provide any other information that may assist in the rapid identification of the record for which you are requesting access.
Current or former Board employees may make a request for access by contacting the Board office that maintains the record. The Board handles all Privacy Act requests as both a Privacy Act request and as a Freedom of Information Act request. The Board does not charge fees to a requestor seeking to access or amend his/her Privacy Act records. You may submit your Privacy Act request to the Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551.
If your request is for records maintained by the Board's Office of Inspector General, submit your request to the Inspector General, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. You may also submit your Privacy Act request electronically through the Board's FOIA “Electronic Request Form” located at
The Privacy Act allows individuals to seek amendment of information that is erroneous, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete and is maintained in a system of records about you. To request an amendment to your record, you should clearly mark the request as a “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” You have the burden of proof for demonstrating the appropriateness of the requested amendment and you must provide relevant and convincing evidence in support of your request.
Your request for amendment must: (1) Provide the name of the specific Board system of records containing the record you seek to amend; (2) identify the specific portion of the record you seek to amend; (3) describe the nature of and reasons for each requested amendment;
Same as “Access procedures” above. You may also follow this procedure in order to request an accounting of previous disclosures of records pertaining to you as provided for by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c).
No exemptions are claimed for this system.
None.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning delivery schedules.
Submit comments on or before June 11, 2018.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202-208-4949 or via email at
The time of delivery or performance is an essential contract element and must be clearly stated in solicitations and contracts. The contracting officer may set forth a required delivery schedule or may allow an offeror to propose an alternate delivery schedule, for other than those for construction and architect-engineering, by inserting in solicitations and contracts a clause substantially the same as either FAR 52.211-8, Time of Delivery, or FAR 52.211-9, Desired and Required Time of Delivery. These clauses allow the contractor to fill in their proposed delivery schedule. The information is needed to assure supplies or services are obtained in a timely manner.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Transportation Requirements.
Submit comments on or before June 11, 2018.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0061, Transportation
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-501-1448 or via email at
FAR Part 47 contains policies and procedures for applying transportation and traffic management considerations in the acquisition of supplies. The FAR part also contains policies and procedures when acquiring transportation or transportation-related services. Generally, contracts involving transportation require information regarding the nature of the supplies, method of shipment, place and time of shipment, applicable charges, marking of shipments, shipping documents and other related items.
Contractors are required to provide the information in accordance with the following FAR Part 47 clauses: 52.247-29 through 52.247-44, 52.247-48, 52.247-52, and 52.247-64. The information is used to ensure that: (1) Acquisitions are made on the basis most advantageous to the Government and; (2) supplies arrive in good order and condition, and on time at the required place.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
In accordance with the court order on July 19, 2016 (Kort v. Burwell), this notice provides further explanation on the National Coverage Determinations for positron emission tomography (PET) neuroimaging for dementia.
Linda Gousis, (410) 786-8616.
On July 19, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to further explain one aspect of a National Coverage Determination (NCD) decision memorandum issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
In accordance with the Court's order, we explain why CMS covers one diagnostic test for specific patients, while covering the other only in the context of a clinical study (
The 2004 NCD for FDG PET resulted in narrow coverage of the diagnostic test for specific subpopulations of patients meeting narrowly defined criteria (CMS
The 2013 amyloid PET NCD resulted in non-coverage of amyloid PET for dementia and neurodegenerative disease; however, coverage was made available in the context of a clinical study. There, one amyloid PET scan per patient would be covered through coverage with evidence development (CED) pursuant to section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act (CMS 2013, 4). The diagnostic test is covered under certain research parameters “in two scenarios: (1) To exclude Alzheimer's disease (AD) in narrowly defined and clinically difficult differential diagnoses, such as AD versus frontotemporal dementia (FTD); and (2) to enrich clinical trials seeking better treatments or prevention strategies, by allowing for selection of patients on the basis of biological as well as clinical and epidemiological factors” (CMS 2013, 4).
The plaintiffs in
We evaluated the relevant clinical evidence to determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that an item or service is reasonable and necessary for the Medicare population, which consists largely of adults 65 years of age and older (CMS 2004, 13 and CMS 2013, 13). This process was discussed in the methodological principles for both NCDs. The critical appraisal of the evidence enables CMS to determine to what degree the agency is confident that the intervention will improve health outcomes for beneficiaries (CMS 2004, 13 and CMS 2013, 13).
Specifically for diagnostic imaging tests, the overall assessment focuses on whether use of the test to guide patient management and treatment improves health outcomes (also referred to as clinical utility). Before appropriately reaching a consideration of outcomes, two fundamental properties of diagnostic tests need to be established: (1) the test accurately and reliably measures the intended analyte, factor, or component (also referred to as analytic validity); and (2) the test accurately and reliably identifies the condition or disorder of interest (also referred to as clinical validity). Outcomes such as change in patient management due to diagnostic tests and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity are also of interest to CMS (CMS 2004, 14 and CMS 2013, 30).
While both diagnostic tests use a PET scan, there is a distinction in the tracers used for the scans: FDG provides a physiologic (functional) assessment of the brain since it highlights glucose metabolism; meanwhile, beta amyloid tracers such as florbetapir (Amyvid®) and flutemetamol (Vizamyl®) provide a molecular (anatomic) assessment since they bind to amyloid β plaques (CMS 2004, 5 and CMS 2013, 11). In both coverage analysis, we focused on whether the PET scans can accurately and reliably identify dementias, including AD, and whether use of the scans to guide management and treatment improves meaningful health outcomes (CMS 2004, 14 and CMS 2013, 14). We focused on these because numerous mechanism of action studies have shown that PET scans can accurately and reliably detect radionuclide tracers that tag nitrogen, oxygen, glucose, and amyloid.
Ultimately, we determined that evidence for FDG PET for differential diagnosis of dementias was more compelling and substantiated than for amyloid PET when the same analytic framework was applied to these diagnostic imaging tests. There were several reasons for CMS finding FDG PET more compelling. The ability of the FDG PET test to accurately and reliably identify the disorder of interest is better established and accepted than for molecular PET scans, such as beta amyloid (CMS 2004, 8). Since the 1980s, functional assessment of the brain using one of a number of tracers, such as ones for blood flow, oxygen utilization, and glucose metabolism, has been used to diagnose dementia. Among these, FDG is a glucose analog and behaves similar to glucose in the cell. Glucose metabolism may be viewed as an indicator of cell activity. Used as a PET tracer, FDG will indicate the cell activity. In the brain, function as shown by cell activity (glucose metabolism or FDG tagging) may be used to differentiate causes of dementia (CMS 2004, 7). For example, in frontal lobe dementia, imaging tests have shown marked hypometabolism (darker areas) of the frontal or temporal lobes with sparing of parietal lobes. In patients with Alzheimer's disease, there is typically hypometabolism bilaterally in the temporal and parietal lobes (CMS 2004, 5, 7, and 33). Additionally, “the presumed higher specificity of FDG PET for detecting metabolic patterns correlated with FTD could decrease the number of false positive results for AD and consequently increase the number of true positives for FTD to inform
In contrast to the evidence supporting use of FDG PET, there were uncertainties regarding the use of amyloid PET. The presence or absence of amyloid in the brain has been considered in diagnosis of AD, but it is not diagnostic because some normal individuals also have amyloid plaques (CMS 2013, 10). Amyloid tracers bind to and statically mark amyloid plaque providing an anatomic or structural assessment (location and concentration) but do not provide information on cell activity or brain function. This is an inherent limitation of anatomic assessments compared to functional assessments because the hallmark of dementia is an abnormal decline in cognitive function (CMS 2013, 7). Thus, the premise that the test accurately and reliably identifies the disorder is reduced in amyloid imaging compared to functional imaging, such as FDG, due to the different mechanisms of action. Additionally, the ability of amyloid PET scans to diagnose AD is inherently reduced by the pathophysiologic characteristics of AD since the presence extracellular amyloid β is only one of two specific findings required for the diagnosis of AD. The second key factor is the presence of intracellular neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) consisting of abnormal tau proteins. Amyloid tracers do not show the presence of NFTs or abnormal tau proteins, which are not detected by any commercially available radionuclide tracer (CMS 2013, 10). In addition, findings based on postmortem investigation and studies (pathophysiologic alternations in brain biopsies) may not directly translate to factors that may be used to make a clinical diagnosis of patients with dementia.
The FDG PET NCD acknowledged that AD-type physiology may be present in normal individuals with normal cognitive function; therefore, a positive amyloid PET scan does not necessarily mean the individual has AD (CMS 2004, 5). As subsequently noted in the amyloid PET decision memo nine years later, “[A]myloid plaques are seen in other diseases, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and inclusion body myositis. Amyloid plaques can also be detected in cognitively normal older adults. Autopsy studies demonstrate that approximately 33% of older individuals (20-65% depending on age) who are cognitively normal have amyloid accumulation at levels consistent with AD pathology (Hulette 1998, Price 1999, Knopman 2003, Rowe 2010)” (CMS 2013, 10).
The reliability of test is a necessary component for determining health outcomes or clinical utility. The foundation of clinical utility for functional PET scans, like FDG PET, is better established than anatomic PET scans, like amyloid PET. While direct, high quality evidence on clinical utility of FDG PET for dementia was not found in published literature at the time of the 2004 decision, there were related studies that showed clinical utility of FDG PET for other treatable causes of cognitive impairment or dementia such as cerebrovascular disease, certain inherited diseases, and metabolic conditions that could possibly be diagnosed with FDG PET, and then treated with proven therapies to improve health outcomes (CMS 2004, 32, 37). At the time of the amyloid PET NCD, there was no published evidence of clinical utility similar to what was reviewed for FDG PET, and there were no related studies suggesting that amyloid PET would be helpful in the differential diagnosis of AD and FTD (CMS 2013, 14). Further, because amyloid PET does not specifically diagnose other conditions, the clinical utility or improved health outcomes associated with other diseases is not applicable.
Since the mid-2000s, a number of clinical trials of different therapies that target amyloid have failed to produce results of improvement in health outcomes (CMS 2013, 61).
We did not have the same concerns regarding false positives using FDG PET to differentially diagnose AD as we did with amyloid PET. The predictive value of the amyloid PET scan cannot be based solely on its capability to “rule out” AD, because there is also the risk of positively diagnosing patients with Alzheimer's when they do not have it. Conversely, for a patient faced with the possibility of having Alzheimer's, a negative amyloid PET result could be reassuring (CMS 2013, 52-53). However, such reassurance would not change clinical management because the patient may still have AD. If a clinician did not have “a convincing clinical picture [of AD], work up to exclude other diagnosable and potentially treatable diseases should proceed anyway (as it would if an amyloid scan were negative). The unavailability of an amyloid scan does not change that logic” (CMS 2013, 52).
At the same time, the amyloid PET scan portends great risk because there is no evidence for what a positive scan means in specific patients since they can have amyloid plaques but not have AD. At the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) meeting held specifically on amyloid PET on January 30, 2013, one expert speaker mentioned that he believed that a patient with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and a positive amyloid PET scan had Alzheimer's disease and that many other experts agreed with him (MEDCAC 2013, 31, 53).
We concluded in the amyloid PET NCD that “widespread clinical use of the scan both in many types of patients with unexplained MCI, and to make a positive diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (despite insufficient evidence on
“False positive” test results, widely considered by radiologists as the bane of diagnostic imaging, are of special concern for amyloid PET. The following are scenarios that contrast the impacts of negative, positive, and false positive test results. For example, if a patient were to get a computed tomography (CT) study of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to “rule out” cancer, and if the CT study were negative, that indeed would be reassuring to the patient. However, if the study were positive for an enlarged lymph node, liver lesion, or some questionable pulmonary nodule, these findings could be followed up by biopsy, surgical resection, or assessing for progression of disease on a close follow-up CT. In contrast, a completely different clinical scenario follows amyloid PET. Those options to further explore findings common for other “positive” diagnostic tests do not exist. Providers cannot do a biopsy, resection, or close follow up of amyloid imaging after a positive amyloid scan.
Concern about false positive test results was not a major factor in the 2004 decision memorandum on FDG PET. Based off of an external technical assessment that helped inform the 2004 decision memorandum, we concluded that “FDG-PET testing would reduce the number of false positive results” (CMS 2004, 16). FDG PET has the ability to diagnose patients with disease (dementias, not only Alzheimer's) since it is a functional test and measures glucose metabolism (activity) as noted earlier. Based on the patterns of uptake (cellular function indicating activity), a differential diagnosis between FTD (characteristic hypometabolism in the frontal lobe of the brain) versus AD (characteristic hypometabolism in temporal and parietal lobes of the brain) versus normal patterns (no hypometabolism) may be made. In our FDG PET decision, we noted, “Patients with FTD generally tend to show bifrontal and bitemporal hypoperfusion in single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) or glucose hypometabolism in FDG PET scans. In contrast, temporoparietal defects are predominant in AD” (CMS 2004, 7).
In contrast, the false positive results were a greater concern with amyloid PET (CMS 2013, 48-50), since amyloid plaques may be present in many individuals with normal cognitive function. As noted earlier, the presence of amyloid (positive test) by itself does not diagnose AD since the diagnosis of AD is based on the presence of both amyloid and tau proteins on autopsy. A positive amyloid PET does not allow a differential diagnosis between FTD versus AD versus an individual with normal cognitive function since amyloid is a structural component and does not indicate function.
Two expert panels, in 2002, the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC)
In contrast to the uniform consensus for FDG PET, in 2013, two expert panels, the AIT
As required by the court order that accompanied the
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until March 23, 2020.
Authority for the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on March 23, 2020, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Kalyani Bhatt, Division of Advisory Committee and Consultant Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email:
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the practice of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, obstetrics, gynecology, urology, and related specialties, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, obstetrics, gynecology, urology, pediatrics, epidemiology, or statistics and related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please check
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the following public meeting entitled “International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR)—Preparation for ICCR-12 Meeting.” The purpose of the public meeting is to invite public input on various topics pertaining to the regulation of cosmetics. We may use this input to help us prepare for the ICCR-12 meeting that will be held July 10 to 12, 2018, in Tokyo, Japan.
The public meeting will be held on June 7, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. See the
The public meeting will be held at the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Dr., Wiley Auditorium (first floor), College Park, MD 20740.
Jonathan Hicks, Office of Cosmetics and Colors, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr. (HFS-125), College Park, MD 20740,
The intention of the ICCR multilateral framework is to pave the way for the removal of regulatory obstacles to international trade while maintaining global consumer protection. The purpose of the meeting is to invite public input on various topics pertaining to the regulation of cosmetics. We may use this input to help us prepare for the ICCR-12 meeting that will be held July 10 to 12, 2018, in Tokyo, Japan.
ICCR is a voluntary international group of cosmetics regulatory authorities from Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United States of America. These regulatory authority members will engage in constructive dialogue with their relevant cosmetics industry trade
We will make the agenda for the public meeting available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of 18 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The holders of the applications notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Approval is withdrawn as of May 11, 2018.
Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945,
The holders of the applications listed in the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of May 11, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on May 11, 2018 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is requesting that any consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection of voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on its advisory committees or panels notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on advisory committees and/or panels for which vacancies currently exist or are expected to occur in the near future. Nominees recommended to serve as a voting or nonvoting consumer representative may be self-nominated or may be nominated by a consumer organization.
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees, and therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests on an FDA advisory committee or panel may send a letter or email stating that interest to FDA (see
All statements of interest from consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection process and consumer representative nominations should be submitted electronically to
Consumer representative nominations should be submitted electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal:
For questions relating to participation in the selection process: Kimberly Hamilton, Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff (ACOMS), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8220, email:
For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels, contact the appropriate contact person listed in table 1.
FDA is requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives for the vacancies listed in table 2:
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in anesthesiology and surgery.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of infectious diseases and disorders.
Reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drugs for use in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology, and related specialties.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cardiovascular and renal disorders.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and contrast media used in diagnostic radiology.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of pulmonary disease and diseases with allergic and/or immunologic mechanisms.
Review and evaluate data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and make recommendations for their regulation. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, advises on the classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories; advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; advises on formulation of product development protocols; reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; reviews guidelines and guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; advises on the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from the Agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices.
The Dental Products Panel also functions at times as a dental drug panel. The functions of the dental drug panel are to evaluate and recommend whether various prescription drug products should be changed to over-the-counter status and to evaluate data and make recommendations concerning the approval of new dental drug products for human use.
The Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel provides advice to the Commissioner on complex or contested scientific issues between FDA and medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies. The Panel makes recommendations on issues that are lacking resolution, are highly complex in nature, or result from challenges to regular advisory panel proceedings or Agency decisions or actions.
Persons nominated for membership as consumer representatives on committees or panels should meet the following criteria: (1) Demonstrate an affiliation with and/or active participation in consumer or community-based organizations, (2) be able to analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4) discuss benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of products under review. The consumer representative should be able to represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the advisory committee; serve as a liaison between the committee and interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the advisory committees on scientific issues that affect consumers.
Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted through procedures that include the use of organizations representing the public interest and public advocacy groups. These organizations recommend nominees for the Agency's selection. Representatives from the consumer
Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will compile a list of consumer organizations that will participate in the selection process and will forward to each such organization a ballot listing at least two qualified nominees selected by the Agency based on the nominations received, together with each nominee's current curriculum vitae or resume. Ballots must be filled out and returned to FDA within 30 days. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes ordinarily will be selected to serve as the member representing consumer interests for that particular advisory committee or panel.
Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent consumer interests on the Agency's advisory committees or panels. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
Nominations must also specify the advisory committee(s) or panel(s) for which the nominee is recommended. In addition, nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest. Members will be invited to serve for terms up to 4 years.
FDA will review all nominations received within the specified timeframes and prepare a ballot containing the names of qualified nominees. Names not selected will remain on a list of eligible nominees and be reviewed periodically by FDA to determine continued interest. Upon selecting qualified nominees for the ballot, FDA will provide those consumer organizations that are participating in the selection process with the opportunity to vote on the listed nominees. Only organizations vote in the selection process. Persons who nominate themselves to serve as voting or nonvoting consumer representatives will not participate in the selection process.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “E11(R1) Addendum: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population” (E11(R1) addendum or addendum). The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. The guidance is an addendum to the guidance published in 2000 entitled “E11 Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population” (ICH E11 (2000)), and provides updates to the original guidance. This addendum does not alter the scope of the original guidance, which outlines an approach to the safe, efficient, and ethical study of medicinal products in the pediatric population. This addendum complements and provides clarification and current regulatory perspective on topics in pediatric drug development. The guidance is intended to provide high-level guidance on the implementation of important approaches in pediatric drug development. This harmonized addendum will help to define the current recommendations and reduce the likelihood that substantial differences will exist among regions for the acceptance of data generated in pediatric global drug development programs and ensure timely access to medicines for children.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world have participated in many important initiatives to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to enhance harmonization, and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically-based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
The ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. The ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; FDA; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization, and is funded by the Members of the ICH Association.
The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers. The Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA guidances.
In the
After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guideline, a final draft of the guideline was submitted to the ICH Assembly and endorsed by the regulatory agencies in August 2017.
The E11(R1) addendum provides guidance on pediatric drug development and is intended to complement and provide clarification and current regulatory perspectives on topics in pediatric drug development that were originally presented in ICH E11 (2000). The addendum does not alter the scope of the original guidance, which outlines an approach to the safe, efficient, and ethical study of medicinal products in the pediatric population. In the addendum, section II (2) (ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS), section IV (4) (AGE CLASSIFICATION AND PEDIATRIC SUBGROUPS, INCLUDING NEONATES), and section VII (7) (PEDIATRIC FORMULATIONS), supplement the content in ICH E11 (2000). Section III (3) (COMMONALITY OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR PEDIATRIC DRUG DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS) addresses issues to aid scientific discussions at various stages of pediatric drug development in different regions. Section V (5) (APPROACHES TO OPTIMIZE PEDIATRIC DRUG DEVELOPMENT) includes enhancement to the topic of Extrapolation, and introduces Modeling and Simulation. Section VI (6) (PRACTICALITIES IN THE DESIGN AND EXECUTION OF PEDIATRIC CLINICAL TRIALS) includes discussion of feasibility, outcome assessments, and long-term clinical aspects, including
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “E11(R1) Addendum: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with a short public comment period at the end. Attendance is limited by the space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NCI Shady Grove has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the NCI Shady Grove building. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on May 18, 2018, 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. (EDT) in a closed teleconference meeting.
The meeting will include discussions and evaluations of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d).
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website at
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of correction.
This is a correction to the meeting announcement of the Notice of Meeting for the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee published on the
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), in accordance with section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act, announces a meeting of the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC).
The meeting is open to the public and will include information on federal efforts related to serious mental illness (SMI) and serious emotional disturbance (SED), including data evaluation, and recommendations for action. Committee members will also discuss ISMICC member relationship to implementation workgroups, establishing the prevalence of SMI and SED, communication with non-federal organizations to engage non-federal support for ISMICC, and future meetings.
June 8, 2018/9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (EDT).
The meeting will be held at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Room 800, Washington, DC 20201. The meeting can be accessed via webcast at
The public comment section is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and individuals interested in submitting a comment, must notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Ms. Pamela Foote, on or before May 24, 2018 via email to:
Two minutes will be allotted for each approved public comment as time permits. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting.
Substantive meeting information and a roster of Committee members is available at the Committee's website
Pamela Foote, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 14E53C, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone: 240-276-1279; email:
The ISMICC was established on March 15, 2017, in accordance with section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, to report to the Secretary, Congress, and any other relevant federal department or agency on advances in serious mental illness (SMI) and serious emotional disturbance (SED), research related to the prevention of, diagnosis of, intervention in, and treatment and recovery of SMIs, SEDs, and advances in access to services and support for adults with SMI or children with SED. In addition, the ISMICC will evaluate the effect federal programs related to serious mental illness have on public health, including public health outcomes such as (A) rates of suicide, suicide attempts, incidence and prevalence of SMIs, SEDs, and substance use disorders, overdose, overdose deaths, emergency hospitalizations, emergency room boarding, preventable emergency room visits, interaction with the criminal justice system, homelessness, and unemployment; (B) increased rates of employment and enrollment in educational and vocational programs; (C) quality of mental and substance use disorders treatment services; or (D) any other criteria as may be determined by the Secretary. Finally, the ISMICC will make specific recommendations for actions that agencies can take to better coordinate the administration of mental health services for adults with SMI or children with SED. Not later than 1 (one) year after the date of enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, and 5 (five) years after such date of enactment, the ISMICC shall submit a report to Congress and any other relevant federal department or agency.
This ISMICC consists of federal members listed below or their
The ISMICC is required to meet twice per year.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at (240) 276-1243.
The
The STOP Act also requires the Secretary to develop “a set of measures to be used in preparing the report on best practices” and to consider categories including but not limited to the following:
Congress' purpose in mandating the collection of data on state policies and programs through the
Because of the broad scope of data required by the STOP Act, SAMHSA relies on existing data sources where possible to minimize the survey burden on the states. SAMHSA uses data on state underage drinking policies from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), an authoritative compendium of state alcohol-related laws. The APIS data is augmented by SAMHSA with original legal research on state laws and policies addressing underage drinking to include all of the STOP Act's requested laws and regulations (Category #1 of the four categories included in the STOP Act, as described above, page 2).
The STOP Act mandates that the
SAMHSA has determined that data on Categories #2, #3, and #4 mandated in the STOP Act (as listed on page 2) (enforcement and educational programs;
The
(1) Enforcement programs to promote compliance with underage drinking laws and regulations (as described in Category #2 above, page 2);
(2) Programs and media campaigns targeted to youth, parents, and caregivers to deter underage drinking (as described in Category #3 above, page 2);
(3) State interagency collaboration to implement prevention programs and media campaigns, state best-practice standards, and collaborations with tribal governments (as described above, page 4);
(4) The amount that each state invests on the prevention of underage drinking in the categories specified in the STOP Act (see description of Category #4, above, page 2) and descriptions of any dedicated fees, taxes, or fines used to raise these funds.
The number of questions in each section is as follows:
Note that the number of questions in Section 2A is an estimate. This section asks states to identify up to 10 programs that are specific to underage drinking prevention. For each program identified there are three follow-up questions. Based on the average number of programs per state reported in the Survey's seven year history, it is anticipated that states will report an average of five programs for a total of 15 questions.
It is anticipated that most respondents will actually respond to only a subset of this total. The
This latest version of the
a. A question about underage drinking prevention programs has been eliminated. Previously, states were asked to define each program by whether it was aimed at the “general population” or a “specific countable population (
b. Questions about the specific number of different populations (youth, parents, and caregivers) served by each prevention program have been reformatted as follows:
i. Definitions of each population category have been deleted from the introduction to Part 2, Section A and have been incorporated into the subsequent questions about each program, making it easier for respondents to answer these questions without referring back to the introduction.
ii. For the sake of efficiency, three separate questions about type of population served by each program have been collapsed into one question.
c. References to “media campaigns” have been added to the introduction of this section to encourage respondents to include these among the prevention programs listed in their responses. As noted in the following description to changes in Part 2, Section B, the survey is being amended to evaluate awareness of, and participation in the national media campaign mandated by the STOP Act.
a. New questions about the national media campaign to reduce underage drinking aimed at adults (as mandated by the STOP Act) have been added. The questions are intended to:
i. Evaluate awareness of and participation in the national media campaign, “Talk. They Hear You.” (TTHY), including questions about the commitment of state resources and funding to this effort. The STOP Act requires evaluation of the national media campaign, which is largely conducted by other survey instruments. However, adding a question on the campaign here is an efficient way to gather state-level data for the analysis.
ii. Determine whether the states participate in other media campaigns intended to reduce underage drinking.
iii. Expand the scope of the
No additional time burden should be placed on the respondents, as the added questions are balanced by the deletion of others, with a small net reduction in the total number of questions. All questions continue to ask only for readily available data.
To ensure that the
Based on these investigations, SAMHSA collects the required data using an online survey data collection platform (SurveyMonkey). Links to the four sections of the survey are distributed to states via email. The
The estimated annual response burden to collect this information is as follows:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 15E57-B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Jacksonville, FL), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Jacksonville, FL), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 29, 2017.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Jacksonville, FL) was accredited and approved, as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of September 29, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2020.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 1708 Marshall Street, Jacksonville, FL 32206 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Carteret, NJ), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Carteret, NJ), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of October 25, 2017.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Carteret, NJ) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of October 25, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for October 2020.
Christopher J. Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 1000 Port Carteret Dr., Building C, Carteret, NJ 07008 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Signal Hill, CA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Signal Hill, CA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 6, 2017.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Signal Hill, CA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of June 6, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2020.
Christopher J. Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 1941 Freeman Ave., Suite A, Signal Hill, CA 90755, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Harry Messner, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Department of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Harry Messner at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Messner.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
The Office of the Federal Register received this notice on April 6, 2018.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given in
•
•
Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator, 404-679-7097 (telephone) or 404-679-7081 (fax).
We invite review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit application; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an application for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of an endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive your written comments by May 11, 2018.
•
•
•
Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, 303-236-4224 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an application for a permit to conduct activities intended to promote recovery of a species that is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq,; ESA). The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.
The ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies, Tribes, and the public to comment on the following application:
The applicant requests a permit to conduct “Phase 1” of a multi-phase process to generate disease-resistant black-footed ferrets (
Integration of genetically modified black-footed ferrets into wild populations would require careful execution and constitutes “Phase 2” of the long-term program.
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. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information 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.
If we decide to issue a permit to the applicant listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice informs the public that the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, exercising the authority of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, proclaimed approximately 79.54 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan on March 12, 2018.
Ms. Sharlene M. Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW, MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 208-3615.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 5110) for the lands described below. These lands were proclaimed to be part of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Reservation in Mackinac County, Michigan.
Lot 2, Section 19, Township 41 North, Range 3 West and the South
The above-described lands contain a total of 79.54 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the lands described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads, pipelines, or any other valid easements or rights-of-way or reservations of record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 11, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Jean Sonneman; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Pamela Ridley by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of call for nominations.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit public nominations for three positions on the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board (Board) that will become vacant on March 30, 2018. The Board provides advice concerning the management, protection, and control of wild free-roaming horses and burros on public lands administered by the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Department of Agriculture, through the U.S. Forest Service.
Nominations must be post marked or submitted to the address listed below no later than May 29, 2018.
All mail sent via the U.S. Postal Service should be sent as follows: Division of Wild Horses and Burros, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134 LM, Attn: Dorothea Boothe, WO-260, Washington, DC 20240. All mail and packages that are sent via FedEx or UPS should be addressed as follows: Wild Horse and Burro Division, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE, Room 2134 LM, Attn: Dorothea Boothe, Washington, DC 20003. You may also email PDF documents to Ms. Boothe at
Dorothea Boothe, Acting Wild Horse and Burro Program Specialist, telephone: 202-912-7654, email:
Members of the Board serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business, Board and subcommittee members engaged in Board or subcommittee business, approved by the Designated Federal Official (DFO) may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in government service under Section 5703 of Title 5 of the United States Code. Nominations for a term of 3 years are needed to represent the following categories of interest:
The Board will meet one to four times annually. The DFO may call additional meetings in connection with special needs for advice. Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Board. Nominations will not be accepted without a complete resume. The following information must accompany all nominations for the individual to be considered for a position:
1. The position(s) for which the individual wishes to be considered;
2. The individual's first, middle, and last name;
3. Business address and phone number;
4. Home address and phone number;
5. Email address;
6. Present occupation/title and employer;
7.
8.
9.
10. Experience or knowledge of wild horse and burro management;
11. Experience or knowledge of horses or burros (Equine health, training, and management);
12. Experience in working with disparate groups to achieve collaborative solutions (
13. Identification of any BLM permits, leases, or licenses held by the individual or his or her employer;
14. Indication of whether the individual is a federally registered lobbyist; and
15. Explanation of interest in serving on the Board.
At least one letter of reference sent from special interests or organizations the individual may represent, including, but not limited to, business associates, friends, co-workers, local, State, and/or Federal government representatives, or members of Congress should be included along with any other information that is relevant to the individual's qualifications.
As appropriate, certain Board members may be appointed as special government employees. Special government employees serve on the Board without compensation, and are subject to financial disclosure requirements in the Ethics in Government Act and 5 CFR 2634. Nominations are to be sent to the address listed under
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, members of the Board cannot be employed by either Federal or State governments.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 11, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Jean Sonneman; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Ed Ruda by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 11, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Jean Sonneman; by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Twinkle Thompson-Seitts by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before March 17, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by April 26, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before March 17, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Call for Information and Nominations for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf in the New York Bight.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) invites the submission of information and nominations for commercial wind leases that would allow a lessee to propose the construction of a wind energy project on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the New York Bight, and to develop one or more projects, if approved, after further environmental review. Although this announcement is not itself a leasing announcement, the areas described herein, or portions thereof, may be available for future leasing. BOEM will use responses to this Call for Information and Nominations (hereinafter referred to as “Call” or “notice”) to gauge specific interest in acquiring commercial wind leases in some or all of the Call Areas, as required by law. Parties wishing to submit a nomination in response to this Call should submit detailed and specific information in response to the requirements described in the section entitled, “Required Nomination Information.”
This announcement also requests comments and information from interested and affected parties about site conditions, resources, and multiple uses in close proximity to, or within, the Call Areas that would be relevant to BOEM's review of any nominations submitted and/or to BOEM's possible subsequent decision to offer all or part of the Call Areas for commercial wind leasing. The information that BOEM is requesting is described in the section of this Call entitled, “Requested Information from Interested or Affected Parties.”
BOEM must receive nominations describing your interest in one or more, or any portion of, the Call Areas, by a postmarked date of May 29, 2018 for your nomination to be considered. BOEM requests comments or submissions of information to be postmarked or delivered by this same date. BOEM will consider only those nominations received that conform to this requirement.
Comments and other submissions of information may be submitted by either of the following two methods:
1.
2. U.S. Postal Service or other delivery service. Send your comments and information to the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166.
All responses will be reported on
If you wish to protect the confidentiality of your nominations or comments, clearly mark the relevant sections and request that BOEM treat them as confidential. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information,” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment. Treatment of confidential information is addressed in the section of this Call entitled, “Protection of Privileged or Confidential Information.” Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
Luke Feinberg, BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1705 or
This Call is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3), which was added by section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), as well as the implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 585.
The Call Areas described in this notice are located on the OCS in the New York Bight and are delineated as Fairways North, Fairways South, Hudson North, and Hudson South. The four Call Areas include 222 whole OCS blocks and 172 partial blocks in total, and comprise approximately 2,047 square nautical miles (nmi) (702,192 hectares). These Call Areas were established after considering the
The OCS Lands Act requires BOEM to award leases competitively, unless BOEM makes a determination that there is no competitive interest (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)). BOEM will make this determination after reviewing the nominations received in response to this Call. This Call also requests information from interested and affected parties on issues relevant to potential leasing within the Call Areas.
The responses to this Call could lead to the initiation of a competitive leasing process in some parts of the Call Areas (
A lease, whether issued through a competitive or noncompetitive process, does not grant the lessee the right to construct any facilities on the lease; rather, the lease grants the lessee the exclusive right to submit development plans to BOEM, which BOEM must first have approved before the lessee may proceed to the next stage of the process (30 CFR 585.600 and 585.601).
Whether the leasing process is competitive or noncompetitive, it will include additional opportunities for the public to provide input, and any proposed actions will be reviewed thoroughly for potential environmental and multiple use impacts. The area(s) that may be offered for lease, if any, has/have not yet been determined, and may include less than the total footprint of the Call Areas identified in this Call.
The EPAct amended the OCS Lands Act by adding subsection 8(p)(1)(C), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way (ROWs) on the OCS for activities that are not otherwise authorized by law and that produce or support production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil or gas, including renewable energy sources. The EPAct also required the issuance of regulations to carry out the new authority pertaining to renewable energy on the OCS. The Secretary delegated this authority to issue leases, easements, and ROWs, and to promulgate regulations, to the Director of BOEM. On April 29, 2009, BOEM published regulations entitled, Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf, which have been codified at 30 CFR part 585, which can be found at:
BOEM participates in ocean planning through a collaborative, data-based approach to foster coordinated and informed decisions about our shared ocean resources and the many uses that depend on them.
BOEM appreciates the importance of coordinating its planning endeavors with other OCS users, regulators, and relevant Federal agencies—including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Defense (DoD). BOEM intends to coordinate with the regional planning bodies, which include Federal and state agencies; federally recognized tribes; and Fishery Management Councils. BOEM will also utilize information contained in the Northeast
BOEM has established multiple Task Forces to facilitate coordination among relevant Federal agencies and affected state, local, and tribal governments throughout the leasing process. Task Forces for New Jersey and New York were previously established in 2009 and 2010, respectively, and will continue to be engaged during the planning and leasing process for the New York Bight OCS area. This engagement includes joint Task Force activities, such as the webinar for the New York Bight that was held on December 4, 2017. Meeting materials for these two Task Forces are available on the BOEM website at:
Prior to deciding whether and where leases may be issued, BOEM will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) and conduct consultations to consider the environmental consequences associated with issuing commercial wind leases within all or some of the Call Areas. The EA will consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences associated with leasing, such as site characterization activities (including geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys). BOEM would consider the environmental effects of the construction or operation of any wind energy facility under a separate, project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, which would include additional opportunities for public involvement. BOEM would also conduct several consultations concurrently with, and integrated into, the NEPA process. These consultations would include, but are not limited to, those required by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Executive Order 13175—“Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments.”
The State of New York has a stated goal of developing 2.4 GW of offshore wind energy by 2030. To facilitate this effort, NYSERDA has spearheaded the development of the New York Offshore Wind Master Plan (the Master Plan
On October 2, 2017, BOEM received the State of New York's Area for Consideration. This document identifies an area of the New York Bight that the State has determined, based on its compilation and analysis of scientific, stakeholder and analytical data, to be most desirable for future offshore wind development. BOEM has taken the State's recommendation into account in designating areas for this Call, and will consider the data and analyses generated by the State at subsequent stages of its planning and leasing process in the New York Bight area.
As stated in 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3), “the Secretary shall issue a lease, easement, or right-of-way . . . on a competitive basis unless the Secretary determines after public notice of a proposed lease, easement, or right-of-way that there is no competitive interest.” The first step in BOEM's leasing process is therefore to determine whether or not there is any competitive interest in acquiring a lease within the Call Areas for the purpose of offshore wind development. At the same time, BOEM will determine whether there is overlapping interest in any particular portion of the Call Areas that would result in the need for a competitive process. At the conclusion of the comment period for this Call, BOEM will review the nominations received and determine whether competitive interest exists in any specific locations within the Call Areas. After the close of the Call comment period, if BOEM determines that competitive interest exists for one or more portions of the Call Area, you will be able to submit a bid in a potential future competitive lease sale for those portions of the Call Area even if you did not submit a nomination in response to this Call.
For any portions of the Call Area, but particularly portions with two or more valid nominations, BOEM may consider proceeding with competitive leasing as described in the section of this Call entitled, “Competitive Leasing Process.” For areas where BOEM determines that there is a single interested entity, but only one valid nomination, BOEM may consider proceeding with noncompetitive leasing, as described in the section entitled, “Noncompetitive Leasing Process.”
Respondents to this Call and members of the public should be aware that BOEM will not issue any leases until it has completed the necessary consultations and environmental analysis and given the public an opportunity to comment. BOEM reserves the right not to lease certain nominated areas, or modify such areas from their original, proposed form before offering them for lease.
If, after receiving responses and nominations to this Call, BOEM proceeds with the competitive leasing process for certain areas, it will follow the steps required by 30 CFR 585.211 through 585.225.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
BOEM delineated the Call Areas in consultation with several parties and information sources, including the State of New York (including through its
On October 2, 2017, NYSERDA submitted to BOEM its
The Call Areas outlined in this document contain the areas identified in the
BOEM will consider a wide range of information regarding potential use conflicts within the Call Areas and the areas' suitability for offshore wind development, but is particularly sensitive to—and interested in information regarding—the following issues:
BOEM is soliciting information regarding the use of the areas included in this Call as a fishery. BOEM recognizes that several commercial and recreational fisheries operate in the Call Areas, including, but not limited to: Butterfish, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog, longfin and Illex squid, monkfish, Northeast multispecies, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. BOEM also acknowledges that representatives from the fishing industry have already provided comments and information to NYSERDA regarding fishing in the states Offshore Study Area. BOEM will consider that information at the Area Identification stage of its planning process. BOEM is also aware that several areas identified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Sport Ocean Fishing Grounds atlas are within the Call Areas. These areas include Yankee Spot, Mako Hotel, George's Bank, Bacardi, Triple Wrecks North, Texas Tower, The Slough, Little Italy, Yellowfin Lump, North East Lump, Mako Hole, The Fingers, Resor Wreck, Dusky Hole, Triple Wrecks South, The Bomb, and Glory Hole. BOEM is requesting additional information regarding recreational and commercial fisheries that operate within these Call Areas, including, but not limited to, the use of the area for recreational tuna and marlin tournaments, the fishing gear types used, seasonal uses, and suggestions for reducing use conflicts.
If BOEM concludes that fisheries conflicts cannot be properly mitigated in certain portions of the Call Areas, it may exclude those areas from leasing at the Area Identification stage, during the environmental review process conducted under NEPA, and/or as a result of essential fish habitat consultations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. BOEM may also require measures to mitigate or avoid fishery conflicts at the construction and operations phase of its regulatory process.
Although BOEM has largely erred on the side of inclusion of areas at this early stage in its process, it has accepted the recommendation in the State of New York's
BOEM attempts to avoid leasing areas with high concentrations of marine bird species that may be most impacted by offshore wind development. BOEM's preliminary analyses suggest, however, that the Call Areas do not contain high concentrations of such marine birds. These preliminary analyses were based on maps created from an ongoing BOEM/NOAA study entitled, “Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Seabird Distribution and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf,” which can be found at
Various marine protected species utilize the New York Bight in the vicinity of the Call Areas, including marine mammals, sea turtles, and Atlantic sturgeon. All marine mammal species are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, while certain whale species (including the North Atlantic right whale), all sea turtles species, and the Atlantic sturgeon are afforded additional protections as listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While ESA-listed species are known to be present in the Call Areas, they do not contain National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed species.
The Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species study data show that several species may utilize the habitats in the Call Areas for feeding, resting, migrating, and communication (
In addition to marine mammals and sea turtles, five Distinct Population Segments of the Atlantic sturgeon, an ESA-listed marine fish, likely occur in the New York Bight. The occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in the New York Bight has been well documented through fisheries bycatch information, New York bottom trawl sub-adult Atlantic sturgeon surveys, a variety of tagging studies, and more recently through an offshore telemetry study funded by BOEM and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (see:
BOEM will utilize information received in response to the Call to assist with its verification of any migratory periods, persistent or seasonally occurring oceanic habitat features associated with the presence of protected marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish, periods of high species abundance or diversity that may occur within the Call Areas. BOEM also seeks any additional information regarding the use of the Call Areas by Atlantic sturgeon, including specific known overwintering habitats, such as holes or troughs adjacent to shoals where Atlantic sturgeon are regularly encountered, as well as the time of year
BOEM will consider all the best available information to identify and assess potential areas of conflict with marine protected species within the Call Areas and consult with resource agencies during the Area Identification process, as necessary.
Portions of the Call Areas are regularly trafficked by multiple types of vessels entering and leaving ports in New Jersey and New York, based on BOEM's preliminary analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data between 2010-2012, and the State of New York's analysis of 2013 AIS data as part of its
BOEM excluded the following portions of the OCS from the Call Area based on the State of New York's Navigation Study recommendations:
• Between the Hudson North and Hudson South Call Areas, an area 30 nmi in length and approximately 15 nmi wide from the entrance/exit of the New York Southeastern Approach (Hudson Canyon to Ambrose and Ambrose to Hudson Canyon traffic lanes).
• All sub-blocks that overlap with a 1 nmi buffer along all outer edges of traffic lanes, shipping safety fairways, and the above-mentioned 30 nmi delineated area.
BOEM coordinates with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) on navigational issues and will continue its engagement throughout all phases of its regulatory process. In 2015, as an outcome of its Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study, USCG issued Marine Planning Guidelines (MPG), which recommends a 2 nmi parallel buffer between the outer or seaward boundary of a traffic lane and offshore structures, and a 5 nmi buffer for a Traffic Separation Scheme entry or exit. USCG has stated that these buffers are guidelines, and has acknowledged that navigational risks can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, pending more detailed analysis following the lessee's submission of a Navigational Safety Risk Assessment at the construction and operations phase of BOEM's regulatory process. Pending the outcome of future analysis, BOEM may not offer some portions of the Call Areas for leasing or development based on information provided in response to during the Call regarding safety concerns and historic routes of vessel traffic.
BOEM is also seeking information regarding the following:
•
•
The Department of Defense (DoD) conducts offshore testing, training, and operations within portions of the Call Areas. BOEM refined the Call Areas based on the most recent DoD assessment of compatibility between commercial offshore wind development and DoD testing, training and operations. BOEM excluded from consideration all OCS blocks that DoD has determined to be incompatible.
BOEM is working with DoD to update the offshore wind compatibility assessment for the Atlantic that identifies wind energy exclusion areas and those OCS blocks that may require site-specific conditions and stipulations to ensure offshore wind facilities are compatible with DoD activities. These stipulations could include, but may not be limited to: Hold and save harmless agreements; mandatory coordination with DoD on specified activities; restrictions on electromagnetic emissions; and evacuation procedures from the lease area for safety reasons when notified by the DoD. BOEM may remove from leasing consideration any OCS blocks identified as incompatible in DoD's updated compatibility assessment.
Interested parties should also be aware that the Call Areas contain some OCS blocks that have never been assessed by DoD, but will be included in the updated compatibility assessment. These OCS blocks and/or portions thereof include:
The USCG Sector New York identified the northern portion of the Hudson South Call Area as an unofficially designated weapons training range for maintaining law enforcement proficiency. They requested that this area be given consideration as an existing use. These OCS blocks and/or portions thereof include:
The 60m water depth is a reasonable estimate of the maximum limit for likely development of utility scale fixed foundation projects at the present time. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) 2016 assessment of US offshore wind potential identifies three categories of foundation types based on water depth: 0-30 meters for gravity base or monopiles, 30 to 60 meters for jackets or tripods, and 60 meters or greater for floating structures. However, BOEM is aware of nascent floating foundation technology that has been deployed on a limited basis in water deeper than 60m, and new support structure technologies are continually under development. Given the likelihood of continued technological advancement in the offshore wind industry in terms of foundation design, materials use, and turbine efficiency, BOEM requests comment on the appropriateness of the 60m water depth contour as a factor delineating the Call Areas.
The New Jersey and New York coastlines to the north and west of the Call Areas contain various natural areas, lighthouses, beaches, and other public spaces. These coastlines also contain numerous National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) and historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, two units of the National Park Service, Fire Island National Seashore (Fire Island) and Gateway National Recreation Area (Gateway) are located in the vicinity of the Call Areas. Fire Island was established by Congress to preserve the beaches, dunes, and other natural resources within Suffolk County, New York, and is also a designated Wilderness Area. Gateway was established to preserve natural and recreational resources in and around Staten Island, Long Island, and northern New Jersey.
BOEM previously consulted with stakeholders regarding viewshed concerns and completed a study entitled, “Renewable Energy Viewshed Analysis and Visualization Simulation for the New York Outer Continental Shelf Call Area” (
The State of New York initially excluded areas within 15 nmi (17.3 statute miles) of shore from its
As discussed in the
The Call Areas described in this notice are located on the OCS in the New York Bight and are delineated as Fairways North, Fairways South, Hudson North, and Hudson South. The four Areas include 222 whole OCS blocks and 172 partial blocks in total, and comprise approximately 2,047 square nmi (702,192 hectares). A map of the Call Areas, and associated GIS files, which are located in UTM Zone 18 and UTM Zone 19, NAD83 Datum, can be found at the following URL:
The boundary of Call Area Fairways North begins 15 nmi offshore and is parallel to the coast. The area is 15 nmi from both South Hampton, New York and Montauk, New York. The area is about 46 nmi in length from east to west and at its widest point is about 11nmi from north to south. Respondents should be aware that New York NK18-12 Blocks 6233, 6283, 6333, 6383, 6433 and Block Island Shelf NK19-10 Blocks 6202, 6252, 6302, 6352, 6402 border the edge of Universe Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zones 18 and 19. As a result, while these blocks are considered full OCS lease blocks, they vary in area and are smaller than standard OCS blocks. Official acreages for the blocks located within Official Protraction Diagrams (OPD) New York NK18-12 and Block Island Shelf NK19-10 can be found at:
The entire area is approximately 250 square nmi (85,728 hectares) and is described in the table below:
The boundary of Call Area Fairways South begins at 15 nmi offshore Fire Island National Seashore in New York. The area is about 43nmi in length from east to west and about 4 nmi in width from north to south. The entire area is approximately 126.4 square nmi (43,344 hectares) and is described in the table below:
The boundary of Call Area Hudson North begins at about 20 nmi from shore, the closest coastal location being Robert Moses State Park in New York. Jones Beach State Park in New York is about 25 nmi from the area. The area is about 47 nmi in length from east to west and about 30 nmi in width from north to south. The entire area is approximately 696.9 square nmi (239,040 hectares) and is described in the table below:
The boundary of Call Area Hudson South begins 15 nmi offshore Neptune, New Jersey. The area is about 62 nmi in length from north to south and about 30 nmi in width from east to west. The entire area is approximately 974 square nmi (334,080 hectares) and is described in the table below:
On December 30, 2016, BOEM received an unsolicited lease request from PNE Wind USA, Inc. (PNE) for 40,920 acres offshore New York. PNE seeks a lease to develop a 300-400 MW project approximately 28 nmi southeast from the Ruland Road Substation, as described below. BOEM is subsuming portions of PNE's unsolicited request into the Call Areas, and will subject the unsolicited request to the same Area ID analysis and determination of competitive interest as the remainder of the Call Areas.
The unsolicited request is mostly located within the Call Area Fairways South and begins approximately 13.5 nmi from the shore near Fire Island National Seashore in New York and extends roughly 3 nmi seaward. It extends from west to east approximately 15 nmi. It should be noted that 15 lease blocks of the original unsolicited requests have not been included as part of this Call. Specifically, 11 blocks in the northwest portion of the original request have been excluded by the 15 nautical mile visual buffer, and four blocks along the southern and south eastern border of the original request were removed to accommodate a one nautical mile buffer from an existing navigational fairway. The entire area is approximately 48.3 square nmi (16,560 hectares) and is described in the table below:
BOEM requests specific and detailed comments from the public and other interested or affected parties regarding the following:
1. Geological, geophysical, and biological conditions (including bottom and shallow hazards and live bottom) in the area described in this notice.
2. Information regarding the identification of historic properties or potential effects to historic properties from leasing, site assessment activities (including the construction of meteorological towers or the installation of meteorological buoys), or commercial wind energy development in the areas identified in this Call. This includes potential offshore archaeological sites or other historic properties within the areas described in this notice and also onshore historic properties that could potentially be affected by renewable energy activities within the Call Areas. This information will inform BOEM's review of future undertakings under Section 106 of the NHPA and under NEPA.
3. Information relating to whether or not the visibility of wind turbines located in the offshore Call Areas identified in this notice would adversely affect the landscape or seascape of coastal areas of New York and/or New Jersey, and ideas or strategies that could be used to help mitigate or minimize any adverse visual effects, such as: How far offshore turbines should be placed to minimize the visual impact from the coastline; specific locations or areas to avoid development altogether; or any other strategies to help reduce the visual footprint (for example, the color of the turbines [towers, nacelle, blades], the arrangement or pattern of the turbine array, the dimension of the turbines (
4. Information about potentially conflicting uses of the Call Areas, including navigation (commercial and recreational vessel use), recreational fishing hotspots, and commercial fishing areas (see Section 5.1 for additional information regarding known fishing grounds located in the Call Areas).
5. Additional information about port-to-port or port-to-fishing location corridors, determination of appropriate buffers for safety based on the type of vessel between these routes, and the placement of structures in the Call Areas, as well as the density of the types of vessels that utilize these corridors and their ability to use alternative corridors.
6. Additional information regarding recreational and commercial fisheries that operate within these Call Areas, including, but not limited to, the use of the area for recreational tuna and marlin tournaments, the fishing gear types used, seasonal use, and suggestions for reducing use conflicts in response to this Call.
7. BOEM is currently participating in interagency discussions with DOD, Department of Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, and NOAA and conducting research on the potential effect of offshore wind facilities on coastal radar systems. BOEM is requesting additional information regarding the potential for interference with radar systems covering the Call Areas, including, but not limited to, the use of coastal oceanographic radar observations for offshore search and rescue operations and for environmental monitoring.
8. General interest by a developer(s) in constructing a backbone transmission system that would transport electricity generated by wind projects located offshore in the New York Bight, including a general description of the transmission's proposed path and potential interconnection points.
9. Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in and around the Call Areas. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 10.0 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83).
10. Potential buffers between WEAs within the Call Area. Within the
11. Size and number of WEAs within the Call Areas. How should BOEM determine the appropriate size and number of wind energy areas to offer for leasing? As discussed in Section 5, approximately 18% of the Call Areas presented in this document would need to be identified as WEAs to meet the State of New York's request for four 800 MW lease areas. Considering the goals of states within the region of a potential wind energy area is a crucial component of BOEM's process. However, BOEM is seeking further information on what additional factors should be considered in this process.
12. Habitats that may require special attention during siting and construction.
13. Biologically important areas (whether persistent or seasonal) for fish (also see Section 5.3), avian, marine mammal, or sea turtle species, which may be vital for migration, foraging or
14. Other relevant socioeconomic, biological, and environmental information.
If you intend to submit one or more nominations for a commercial wind energy lease in the Call Areas identified in this notice, you must provide the following information for each nomination:
1. The BOEM Protraction name, number, and specific whole or partial OCS blocks within the Call Area(s) that you are interested in leasing, inclusive of any potential buffers with adjacent leases. Each area you identify should be sized appropriately to accommodate the development of a reasonable wind energy facility. For context, BOEM would consider the nomination of a block of approximately 80,000 acres reasonable, as it would likely be able to support an 800 MW wind energy facility (assuming a power density of 0.01 MW per acre). Nominations that considerably exceed approximately 80,000 acres,
2. A description of your objectives and the facilities that you would use to achieve those objectives.
3. A preliminary schedule of proposed activities, including those leading to commercial operations.
4. Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in the block(s) area(s) that you wish to lease, including energy and resource data and information used to evaluate the Call Area. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 10.0 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83).
5. Documentation demonstrating that you are legally qualified to hold a lease, as set forth in 30 CFR 585.106 and 585.107(c). Examples of the documentation appropriate for demonstrating your legal qualifications and related guidance can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the BOEM Renewable Energy Framework Guide Book available at:
6. Documentation demonstrating that you are technically and financially capable of constructing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the facilities described in (2) above, as set forth in 30 CFR 585.107(a). Guidance regarding the required documentation to demonstrate your technical and financial qualifications can be found at:
It is not required that you submit a nomination in response to this Call in order to participate in a potential future competitive lease sale in the New York Bight, if BOEM determines that competitive interest exists in one or more portions of the Call Area after the close of the Call comment period. However, you will not be able to participate in such a lease sale unless you demonstrate prior to the sale that you are legally, technically, and financially qualified to hold a BOEM renewable energy lease. To ensure that BOEM has sufficient time to process your qualifications package, you should submit this package during the PSN 60-day public comment period. More information can be found at:
BOEM will protect privileged or confidential information that you submit when required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that you submit that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment.
BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential (1) the legal title of the nominating entity (for example, the name of your company), or (2) the list of whole or partial blocks that you are nominating. Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
BOEM does not consider anonymous comments; please include your name and address as part of your submittal. You should be aware that your entire comment, including your name, address, and your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. All submissions from identified individuals, businesses and organizations will be available for public viewing on
BOEM is required, after consultation with the Secretary, to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources if it determines that disclosure may, among other things, risk harm to the historic resources or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Tribal entities should designate information that falls under Section 304 of NHPA as confidential.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Proposed Sale Notice.
This document is the Proposed Sale Notice (PSN) for the sale of commercial wind energy leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore Massachusetts, pursuant to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) regulations. BOEM proposes to offer for sale two leases: Lease OCS-A 0502 and Lease OCS-A 0503, which are the same Lease Areas (LA) that were unsold during the Atlantic Wind Lease Sale-4 (ATLW-4) on January 29, 2015. In this PSN, you will find information pertaining to the areas available for leasing, proposed lease provisions and conditions, auction details, lease form, criteria for evaluating competing bids, award procedures, appeal procedures, and lease execution. BOEM invites public comment during a 60-day comment period following publication of this notice. The issuance of the proposed leases resulting from this sale would not constitute approval of project-specific plans to develop offshore wind energy. Such plans, expected to be submitted by the auction winner(s), would be subject to subsequent environmental and technical reviews prior to a decision by BOEM to approve development.
Comments should be submitted electronically or postmarked no later than June 11, 2018. All comments received or postmarked during the comment period will be made available to the public and considered prior to publication of the Final Sale Notice (FSN).
Qualification materials must be postmarked no later than June 11, 2018. Please refer to the “Participation in the Proposed Lease Sale” section for additional information on entity participation and qualification.
Potential auction participants, Federal, state, and local government agencies, tribal governments, and other interested parties are requested to submit their written comments on the PSN in one of the following ways:
1.
2.
3.
Jeff Browning, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP, Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1577 or
This PSN is published pursuant to subsection 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)), as amended by section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), and the implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 585, including 30 CFR 585.211 and 585.216.
The two LAs (OCS-A 0502 and OCS-A 0503) described for leasing in this PSN are the same LAs that were unsold in ATLW-4 on January 29, 2015 (see Atlantic Wind Lease Sale 4 Final Sale Notice available at:
On November 2, 2012, BOEM published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the
Based on the public comments received in response to the EA, the conclusion of required consultations, and public outreach and information meetings, BOEM made certain revisions to the November 2012 EA. As a result of its analysis in the revised EA, BOEM issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on June 18, 2014 (79 FR 117). The
BOEM has evaluated the new information and changed circumstances since the FONSI was published, and has determined they would not result in significantly different environmental effects than those described in the June 2014 revised EA. The existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses and associated consultations adequately assess the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the issuance of commercial leases and associated site characterization activity in the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (WEA), which includes the areas that
While there is no change to the EA's impact analysis for commercial and recreational fisheries, BOEM has elected to include a lease stipulation to ensure the Lessee would coordinate their activities with and communicate with commercial and recreational fishermen. Prior to the development of this lease stipulation, BOEM had been successful in using its review of survey plans and approval of SAPs to ensure that fisheries liaisons are identified and that lessees are communicating with potentially affected fishing groups. Nevertheless, BOEM included the same stipulation in the New York Lease (OCS-A 0512), and it has determined that this lease stipulation is also prudent for these proposed leases offshore Massachusetts given the importance of fishing to the economies of Southern New England states. The specific lease stipulation is as follows:
Fisheries Communications Plan (FCP) and Fisheries Liaison. The Lessee must develop a publicly available FCP that describes the strategies that the Lessee intends to use for communicating with fisheries stakeholders prior to and during activities in support of the submission of a plan. The FCP must include the contact information for an individual retained by the Lessee as its primary point of contact with fisheries stakeholders (
BOEM will conduct additional environmental reviews upon receipt of a lessee's proposed project-specific plans, such as a SAP or Construction and Operations Plan (COP).
Entities wishing to participate in the proposed sale described in this notice must respond to BOEM during the 60-day comment period. Entities that qualified to participate in the first Massachusetts lease sale (ATLW-4) held on January 29, 2015, must: (1) Affirm their interest in acquiring LAs OCS-A 0502 and/or 0503; (2) notify BOEM of any adverse material changes to their financial and/or technical qualifications, including bankruptcies; and (3) provide any updates to their legal qualifications documentation on file with BOEM. Those companies are:
Entities that have filed qualification materials with BOEM to hold a lease offshore Massachusetts since the first Massachusetts lease sale (ATLW-4) held on January 29, 2015, do not need to re-file qualification materials. Those companies are:
All other entities wishing to participate in the proposed Massachusetts lease sale that have not already been legally, financially, and technically qualified to hold a lease for commercial wind development offshore Massachusetts must submit the required qualification materials by the end of the 60-day comment period for this notice.
Stakeholders are encouraged to comment on any matters related to this lease sale that are of interest or concern to them. However, BOEM has identified certain issues as particularly important in developing this lease sale, and we encourage commenters to address these issues specifically.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A map of the two proposed LAs and a table of the boundary coordinates in X, Y (eastings, northings) UTM Zone 18, NAD83 Datum and geographic X, Y (longitude, latitude), NAD83 Datum can be found at the following URL:
In this notice, BOEM proposes to auction the two LAs previously offered in ATLW-4 as lease numbers OCS-A 0502 and OCS-A 0503. Prior to that sale, BOEM commissioned the Department of Energy's National
The first year's rent payment of $3 per acre for the entire LA is due within 45 days of the date the auction winner receives the lease for execution. Thereafter, annual rent payments are due on the anniversary of the Effective Date of the lease (
For example, for a lease the size of 248,015 acres (the size of the LA OCS-A 0502), the amount of rent payment would be $744,045 per year if no portion of the leased area is authorized for commercial operations. If 500 megawatts (MW) of a project's nameplate capacity is operating (or authorized for operation), and its most recent approved COP specifies a maximum nameplate capacity of 1000 MW, the rent payment would be $372,023. For the above example, this would be calculated as follows: 500 MW/1000 MW × ($3/acre × 248,015 acres) = $372,023. BOEM requests comments on whether it would be appropriate to adjust the proposed annual rent to something other than $3 per acre.
The Lessee also must pay rent for any project easement associated with the lease, commencing on the date that BOEM approves the COP (or COP modification) that describes the project easement. Annual rent for a project easement 200-feet wide and centered on the transmission cable is $70.00 per statute mile. For any additional acreage required, the Lessee must also pay the greater of $5.00 per acre per year or $450.00 per year.
For the purposes of calculating the initial annual proposed operating fee payment, an operating fee rate is applied to a proxy for the wholesale market value of the electricity expected to be generated from the project during its first twelve months of operations. This initial payment is prorated to reflect the period between the commencement of commercial operations and the Lease Anniversary. The initial annual operating fee payment is due within 45 days of the commencement of commercial operations. Thereafter, subsequent annual operating fee payments are due on or before each Lease Anniversary. The subsequent annual operating fee payments are calculated by multiplying an operating fee rate by the imputed wholesale market value of the projected annual electric power production. For the purposes of this calculation, the imputed market value is the product of the project's annual nameplate capacity, the total number of hours in the year (8,760), a capacity factor, and the annual average price of electricity derived from a historical regional wholesale power price index. For example, an annual operating fee for a 100 MW wind facility operating at 40% capacity with a regional wholesale power price of $40/MWh under an operating fee rate of 0.02 (
The capacity factor for the year in which the Commercial Operation Date occurs, and for the first six full years of commercial operations on the lease, is set to 0.4 (
Within 10 business days after receiving the lease copies, the provisional winner must provide an initial lease-specific bond or other approved means of meeting the Lessor's
The financial terms can be found in Addendum “B” of the proposed leases, which BOEM has made available with this notice on its website at:
Following the auction, BOEM will apply bid deposits against any bonus bids or other obligations owed to BOEM. If the bid deposit exceeds a bidder's total financial obligation, BOEM will refund the balance of the bid deposit to the bidder. BOEM will fully refund bid deposits to unsuccessful bidders.
• Addendum “A” (Description of Leased Area and Lease Activities);
• Addendum “B” (Lease Term and Financial Schedule);
• Addendum “C” (Lease Specific Terms, Conditions, and Stipulations);
• Addendum “D” (Project Easement);
• Addendum “E” (Rent Schedule);
• Appendix A to Addendum “C”: (Incident Report: Protected Species Injury or Mortality); and
• Appendix B to Addendum “C”: (Required Data Elements for Protected Species Observer Reports).
Addenda “A,” “B,” and “C” provide detailed descriptions of lease terms and conditions. Addenda “D” and “E” will be completed at the time of COP approval.
After considering comments on the PSN and proposed leases, BOEM will publish final lease terms and conditions in the FSN.
Pursuant to 30 CFR 585.601, the leaseholder must submit a SAP within 12 months of lease issuance. If the leaseholder intends to continue its commercial lease with an operations term, the leaseholder must submit a COP at least 6 months before the end of the site assessment term.
Guidelines on BOEM's qualifications requirements can be found at:
Because it may take several weeks for BOEM to assess a potential bidder's legal, technical, and financial qualifications, BOEM advises potential bidders who plan to participate in a sale to submit their qualifications materials promptly. It is not uncommon for BOEM to request additional materials establishing qualifications following an initial review of the qualifications package. BOEM cannot determine a potential bidder to be qualified without a complete qualification package. Potential bidders whom BOEM has not qualified before publication of the FSN will not be allowed to participate in the proposed sale.
As authorized under 30 CFR 585.220(a)(4) and 585.221(a)(6), BOEM proposes that this sale employ a
BOEM proposes to offer a 5% nonmonetary credit in this lease sale for bidders who have executed one or more CBAs meeting the criteria established in the FSN and proposed below. If a bidder is found to be eligible for a nonmonetary credit, the credit would be 5% of the asking price. The cash bid would make up that portion of the bid not covered by the nonmonetary credit. Summed together, these two variables comprise the “As-Bid” price. The effect of possessing a nonmonetary credit of 5% would be to receive a 5% discount on the asking price.
BOEM must receive a bidder's nonmonetary package no later than the due date listed in the FSN, containing a copy of the executed CBA and any additional explanation of the contents and purported benefits of the agreement that the bidder believes would be helpful for BOEM. The submitting bidder may designate confidential business information in its submittal pursuant to process described below.
A BOEM-designated panel will evaluate bidders' nonmonetary packages to determine whether each bidder is eligible for a nonmonetary credit applicable to the asking price in each round of the auction. It is possible that multiple or all bidders could qualify for nonmonetary credits. Bidders will be informed by email before the monetary auction whether they have been deemed eligible for a nonmonetary credit. BOEM will not disclose until after the lease sale which other bidders, if any, were determined to be eligible for a nonmonetary credit.
1. Is there a legally binding contract?
2. Is the contract between the bidder and one or more community-based organizations (CBO)?
3. Has the bidder committed to provide specified community benefits?
4. Has the CBO committed in specific ways to support the project in the governmental approval process?
A community-based organization (CBO) is defined as: A legally incorporated organization whose membership includes residents or property owners of a community within the potentially affected region, the local government of the community, or an entity created or managed by the local government(s) of the community or communities.
Using an online bidding system to host the auction, BOEM will start the bidding for lease OCS-A 0502 at $496,030, and for lease OCS-A 0503 at $281,108. BOEM will increase those prices incrementally until only one active bidder remains in the auction for each LA. BOEM proposes that no bidder in the auction be permitted to win both LAs.
The auction will be conducted in a series of rounds. At the start of each round, BOEM will state an asking price for each LA. If a bidder is willing to meet the asking price for one of the LAs, it will indicate its intent by submitting a bid equal to the asking price. A bid at the full asking price is referred to in this notice as a “live bid.” To participate in the next round of the auction, a bidder must submit a live bid for one of the LAs in each previous round. As long as there are two or more live bids for at least one LA, the auction moves to the next round. BOEM will raise the asking price for each LA by an increment determined by BOEM. Asking price increments will be determined based on a number of factors, including (but not necessarily limited to) the expected time needed to conduct the auction, and the number of rounds that have already occurred. BOEM reserves the right to increase or decrease bidding increments as appropriate.
A bidder may switch its live bid from one LA to the other in the current round only if its bid from the previous round was contested—
Between rounds, BOEM would disclose to all bidders who submitted bids in the first round of the auction: (1) The number of live bids for each LA in the previous round of the auction (
A bidder is only eligible to continue bidding in the auction if it has submitted a live bid in the previous round. In any round after the first round, however, a bidder may submit an “exit bid,” also known as an “intra-round bid.” An exit bid is a bid that is higher than the previous round's asking price, submitted for the sale LA as the bidder's contested live bid in the previous round, but less than the current round's asking price. An exit bid is
A LA with only exit bids in a given round will not have its asking price raised in the next round. As soon as both LAs have one or zero live bids, the auction is over, regardless of the number of exit bids on each area.
After the bidding ends, BOEM would determine the provisionally winning bids for each LA. The provisionally winning bid for a LA would be the highest bid (live bid or exit bid) received for that LA, except that no bidder may win both LAs. Regardless of whether a provisionally winning bid is a live bid or an exit bid, BOEM would apply any nonmonetary credits in the same way. The award procedures described here could result in a tie, for example if two bidders submit identical high exit bids, or prior round live bids for the same LA. In such cases, BOEM would resolve the tie by randomized means. If the procedures described herein would result in the award of both LAs to the same bidder, BOEM would accept only the most recent bid submitted by that bidder and would award the other LA to the next highest bidder.
Provisional winners may be disqualified if they are subsequently found to have violated auction rules or otherwise engaged in conduct detrimental to the integrity of the competitive auction. If a bidder submits a bid that BOEM determines to be a provisionally winning bid, the bidder would be expected to sign the applicable lease documents, establish financial assurance, and submit the cash balance of its bid (
Prior to the auction, the Auction Manager will send several bidder authentication packages to each bidder shortly after BOEM has processed the BFFs. One package will contain tokens for each authorized individual. Tokens are digital authentication devices. The tokens will be mailed to the Primary Point of Contact indicated on the BFF. This individual is responsible for distributing the tokens to the individuals authorized to bid for that company. For bidders with authorized individuals in more than one country, tokens may be sent directly to authorized individuals rather than to the Primary Point of Contact. Bidders are to ensure that each token is returned within three business days following the auction. An addressed, stamped envelope will be provided to facilitate this process. In the event that a bidder fails to submit a BFF or a bid deposit, or does not participate in the auction, BOEM will de-activate that bidder's token and login information, and the bidder will be asked to return its tokens.
The second package will contain login credentials for authorized bidders. The login credentials will be mailed to the address provided in the BFF for each authorized individual. Bidders can confirm these addresses by calling (703) 787-1300. This package will contain user login information and instructions for accessing the Auction System Technical Supplement and Alternative Bidding Form. The login information, along with the tokens, will be tested during the Mock Auction.
BOEM will provide specific information regarding when the bidders can enter the auction system and the auction start time in the FSN. Additional information will be made available in an Auction System Technical Supplement, which will be posted on BOEM's website prior to the auction.
BOEM and the auction contractors will use the auction platform messaging service to keep bidders informed on issues of interest during the auction. For example, BOEM may change the schedule at any time, including during the auction. If BOEM changes the schedule during the auction, it will use the messaging feature to notify bidders that a revision has been made and direct bidders to the relevant page. BOEM will also use the messaging system for other changes and items of particular note during the auction. The auction schedule and asking price increments are in BOEM's discretion, and are subject to change at any time before or during the auction.
During the auction, bidders may place bids at any time during the round. At the top of the bidding page, a countdown clock will show how much time remains in the round. Bidders have until the scheduled time to place bids. Bidders should place bids according to the procedures described in the Auction System Technical Supplement, and as practiced at the Mock Auction. No information about the round is available until the round has closed and results have been posted, so there should be no strategic advantage to placing bids early or late in the round.
During the auction, bidders are prohibited from communicating with each other regarding their participation in the auction. Additionally, during the auction, bidders are prohibited from communicating to the general public regarding any aspect of their participation or lack thereof in the auction, including, but not limited to, through social media, updated websites, or press releases. Federal antitrust law may impose further restrictions on communications between bidders above and beyond the restrictions described in this section.
Alternate Bidding Procedures enable a bidder who is having difficulties accessing the internet to submit its bid via fax using an Alternate Bidding Form available on BOEM's website at:
In order to be authorized to use an Alternative Bidding Form, a bidder must call the help desk number listed in the Auction Manual
Once all post-auction reviews have been completed to BOEM's satisfaction, BOEM will issue three unsigned copies of the lease to the provisionally winning bidder. Within 10 business days after receiving the lease copies, the provisionally winning bidder must:
1. Sign the lease on the bidder's behalf;
2. File financial assurance, as required under 30 CFR 585.515 through 585.537; and
3. Pay by electronic funds transfer (EFT) the balance (if any) of the bonus bid (winning bid less the bid deposit). BOEM requires bidders to use EFT procedures (not
BOEM will not execute a lease until the three requirements above have been satisfied, BOEM has accepted the provisionally winning bidder's financial assurance pursuant to 30 CFR 585.515, and BOEM has processed the provisionally winning bidder's payment.
If BOEM determines the delay was caused by events beyond the provisional
If the provisionally winning bidder does not meet these requirements or otherwise fails to comply with applicable regulations or the terms of the FSN, BOEM reserves the right to not issue the lease to that bidder. In such a case, the provisionally winning bidder will forfeit its bid deposit.
Within 45 days of the date that the provisionally winning bidder receives copies of the lease, it must pay the first year's rent using the
Accordingly, following the auction, and before the acceptance of bids and the issuance of leases, BOEM will “allow the Attorney General, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, thirty days to review the results of the lease sale.” 43 U.S.C. 1337(c). If a bidder is found to have engaged in anti-competitive behavior or otherwise violated BOEM's rules in connection with its participation in the competitive bidding process, BOEM may reject the high bid.
Anti-competitive practices may include, but are not limited to:
• An agreement, either express or tacit, among bidders to not bid in an auction, or to bid a particular price;
• An agreement among bidders not to bid for a particular LA;
• An agreement among bidders not to bid against each other; and
• Other agreements among bidders that may affect the final auction price.
BOEM may decline to award a lease if, pursuant to the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(c)), it is determined by the Attorney General in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission that doing so would be inconsistent with antitrust laws.
For more information on whether specific communications or agreements could constitute a violation of Federal antitrust law, please see:
• If BOEM rejects your bid, BOEM will provide a written statement of the reasons and refund any money deposited with your bid, without interest.
• You will then be able to ask the BOEM Director for reconsideration, in writing, within 15 business days of bid rejection, under 30 CFR 585.118(c)(1). BOEM will send you a written response either affirming or reversing the rejection.
The procedures for appealing final decisions with respect to lease sales are described in 30 CFR 585.118(c).
BOEM does not consider anonymous comments: Please include your name and address as part of your submittal. You should be aware that your entire comment, including your name, address, and your personal identifying information (PII), may be made publicly available at any time. All submissions from identified individuals, businesses and organizations will be available for public viewing on
In order for BOEM to withhold from disclosure your PII, you must identify any information contained in the submittal of your comments that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequence(s) of the disclosure of information, such as embarrassment, injury or other harm.
BOEM will protect privileged or confidential information that is submitted as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information, except as required by FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment.
However, BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM may not treat as confidential the legal title of the commenting entity (
BOEM is required, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources if it determines that disclosure may, among other things, cause a significant invasion of privacy, risk harm to the historic resources or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Tribal entities and other interested parties should designate information that they wish to be held as confidential and provide the reasons why BOEM should do so.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to modify the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist order (“CDO”) (collectively, “the remedial orders”) issued in the above-captioned investigation to suspend enforcement of those orders as to the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,224,668 (“the '668 patent”) that the Commission found to be infringed. The Commission has further determined to deny Arista's motion for stay as moot in view of the suspension of the remedial orders as to the '668 patent.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 27, 2015, based on a Complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Cisco”). 80 FR 4313-14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain network devices, related software and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,853; the '577 patent; 7,460,492; 7,061,875; the '668 patent; and 8,051,211. The Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's Notice of Investigation named Arista Networks Inc. (“Arista”) as respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation. The Commission previously terminated the investigation in part as to certain claims of the asserted patents. Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015), unreviewed Notice (Nov. 18, 2015); Order No. 47 (Nov. 9, 2015), unreviewed Notice (Dec. 1, 2015).
On June 11, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted separate
On May 4, 2017, the Commission found a violation of section 337 as to certain claims of the '577 and '668 patents. Notice (May 4, 2017); 82 FR 21827-29 (May 10, 2017). Specifically, the Commission issued an LEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of network devices, related software and components thereof that infringe any of claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of the '668 patent, and a CDO that prohibits Arista from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer (except for exportation), or distribution of certain network devices, related software and components thereof that infringe any of claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of the '668 patent.
On May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued its final written decision finding claims 1, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the '577 patent unpatentable based on prior art not presented in the Commission investigation. On June 1, 2017, the PTAB issued its final written decision finding claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15-28, 30, 33-36, 55-64, 66, 67, and 69-72 of the '668 patent unpatentable based on certain combinations of prior art not presented in the Commission investigation.
On February 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB's decision finding the claims of the '668 patent unpatentable.
On March 15, 2018, Arista filed a motion before the Commission to stay the Commission's remedial orders as to the '668 patent. On March 26, 2018, Cisco filed its response stating that it takes no position on and, thus, does not oppose Arista's motion. OUII did not file a response to Arista's motion.
The Commission has determined, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k)(1) and 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), to modify the remedial orders to suspend enforcement of those orders with respect to the '668 patent pending rescission of the orders upon the cancellation of the asserted claims or pending reversal or vacatur of the Federal Circuit's decision in
The Commission has further determined to deny Arista's motion as moot in view of the suspension of the remedial orders as to the '668 patent.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 2) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon a consent order stipulation; entry of consent order and termination of investigation.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 16, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Lumencor, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon (“Lumencor”). 83 FR 11789 (Mar. 16, 2018). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 light engines and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,574,722 (“the '722 patent”); claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,395,055 (“the '055 patent”); and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,493,564 (“the '564 patent”). The notice of investigation named the following respondents: Excelitas Technologies Corp. of Waltham, Massachusetts and Lumen Dynamics Group, Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada (collectively, “Respondents”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to the investigation.
On March 15, 2018, Lumencor and Respondents filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon consent order stipulation. No responses to the motion were filed. We note that the Commission issued its notice to institute this investigation on March 12, 2018, but the notice did not appear in the
On March 20, 2018, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the motion. On March 26, 2018, the ALJ issued errata correcting a typographical error on page 2 of the ID (changing “Lumencor also agrees to” to “Respondents also agree to”). The ALJ found that the consent order stipulation complies with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3) (19 CFR 210.21(c)(3)), and that terminating the investigation in its entirety would not be contrary to the public interest. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID and to issue consent order herewith.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 21, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification with the Department was filed on December 14, 2017. A notice was filed in the
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 11, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 22, 2016, Lipomed, 150 Cambridge Park Drive, Suite 705, Cambridge, MA 02140 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
On July 27, 2017, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Witold Marek Zajewski, M.D. (Respondent), of Mount Prospect, Illinois. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BZ5641419 on the ground that he has “no state authority to handle controlled substances.” Order to Show Cause, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). For the same reason, the Order also proposed the denial of any of Respondent's “applications for renewal or modification of such registration and any applications for any other DEA registrations.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
Regarding the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 29, 2017, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation (IDFPR), “issued an Order suspending [his] Illinois Physician and Surgeon License No. 036.096849 and suspending [his] Illinois Controlled Substance License No. 336.063325,” and he is therefore “without authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the State of Illinois, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with the DEA.”
The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of (1) his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, (2) the procedure for electing either option, and (3) the consequence for failing to elect either option.
On August 21, 2017, Respondent, through counsel, filed a letter requesting a hearing on the allegations. Letter from Respondent's Counsel to Hearing Clerk (dated Aug. 18, 2017) (hereinafter, Hearing Request). In this letter, Respondent “objects to the statement that his licenses have been suspended” because the IDFPR “entered only a temporary order of suspension of his license” until “an informal hearing” scheduled in December 2017.”
The matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to Administrative Law Judge Mark M. Dowd (hereinafter, ALJ). On August 25, 2017, the ALJ ordered the Government to “file evidence to support the allegation that the Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances,” “respond to the Respondent's request for continuance,” and file “any motion for summary disposition” no later than September 6, 2017. Order Directing the Filing of Government Evidence of Lack of State Authority and Briefing Schedule, at 1. The ALJ also directed Respondent to file his response to any summary disposition motion no later than September 15, 2017.
On September 1, 2017, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition. In its Request, the Government argued that it is undisputed that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Illinois because the IDFPR suspended Respondent's medical license and his controlled substance license. Government's Motion for Summary Disposition (hereinafter Government's Motion or Govt. Mot.) at 2. The Government also noted that, in his Hearing Request, Respondent did not dispute that the IDFPR had suspended these licenses.
In his responsive pleading, Respondent did not dispute that the IDFPR “temporarily suspended” his medical and controlled substance licenses. Respondent's Sept. 15, 2017 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Government's Motion for Summary Disposition (hereinafter, Resp. Reply), at 1. Instead, he argued that the suspensions were “pending proceedings” before a state administrative law judge and that he “believe[s] this matter may be resolved” at an “informal hearing” in December 2017.
The ALJ denied “Respondent's request for an extension of time—in essence to stay these proceedings,” noting that “revocation of a practitioner's registration is warranted whenever his (or its) state authority to dispense controlled substances has been suspended or revoked.” Order Denying the Respondent's Request for an Extension of Time, Granting the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (R.D.), at 2 (internal quotations and citations omitted), 3. While he was “not unmindful of the Respondent's argument that granting an extension of time has been used in the past” in
Moreover, one week before the evidentiary hearing, the respondent was indicted on 30 counts
The ALJ then found that there was no dispute over the fact that “Respondent currently lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in Illinois due to [the IDFPR's] Order dated July 29, 2017, which suspended his state licenses to practice medicine and distribute controlled substances.”
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's Recommended Decision. Thereafter, the record was forwarded to my Office for Final Agency Action. Having reviewed the record, I adopt the ALJ's finding that by virtue of the IDFPR's Order, Respondent is currently without authority to handle controlled substances in Illinois, the State in which he holds his registration with the Agency, and is thus not entitled to maintain his registration. I further adopt the ALJ's recommendation that I revoke his registration and deny any pending renewal application. I make the following factual findings.
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. BZ5641419, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. GX 1. Although not alleged in the Show Cause Order, I also find that Respondent is the holder of DATA-Waiver Identification Number XZ5641419,
On June 29, 2017, the IDFPR issued an Order suspending Respondent's Illinois Physician and Surgeon License No. 036.096849 and his Illinois Controlled Substance License No. 336.063325 “pending proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge at the” IDFPR. GX 2, at 2. The Order also directed Respondent to “immediately surrender all indicia of licensure(s) to the” IDFPR.
In January 2018, the IDFPR announced another enforcement action regarding Respondent's state licenses, stating that his “physician and surgeon license [is] restored to indefinite probation for a minimum of three years and [his] controlled substance license, 336063325, [is] indefinitely suspended, 12 months minimum, effective retroactive to June 29, 2017 for inappropriately prescribing controlled substances to patients of his practice.”
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the CSA, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Also, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
Thus, “the controlling question” in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a DEA registration “is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate” in which the practitioner is registered.
I will therefore adopt the ALJ's recommendation that I revoke Respondent's registration and deny any pending applications to renew his registration. R.D. at 6. I will also deny any pending application to modify his registration, or any pending application for any other registration in Illinois, as requested in the Show Cause Order. Order to Show Cause, at 1. Finally, because Respondent's DATA-Waiver
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. BZ5641419 and DATA-Waiver Identification Number XZ5641419, issued to Witold Marek Zajewski, M.D., be, and they hereby are, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Witold Marek Zajewski to renew or modify the above registration, or any pending application of Witold Marek Zajewski for any other registration in the State of Illinois, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as importers of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as importers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for these notices.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrants to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed companies.
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as bulk manufacturers of various classes of schedule I and II controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as bulk manufacturers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted for these notices.
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of these registrants to manufacture the applicable basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each of the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the DEA has granted a registration as a bulk manufacturer to the above listed companies.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 11, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 11, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 7, 2018, Almac Clinical Services Incorp (ACSI) 25 Fretz Road, Souderton, PA 18964 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in dosage form to conduct clinical trials.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under to 21 U.S.C. 952 (a)(2).
Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a revision to the National Crime Victimization Survey information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection, which is currently under OMB review, was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until May 11, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jennifer Truman, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Since July 2016, self-report data on sexual orientation and gender identity have been collected from all sampled persons age 16 or older. Within six months of OMB approval of this requested change, the single question on sexual orientation and two part question on gender identity (sex at birth and current gender) will no longer be administered to respondents ages 16 and 17. The minimum age for these questions will be raised to 18 due to concerns about the potential sensitivity of these questions for adolescents.
BJS plans to publish information from the NCVS in reports and reference it when responding to queries from the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, the U.S. Supreme Court, state officials, international organizations, researchers, students, the media, and others interested in criminal justice statistics.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed 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. The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is soliciting comments on the proposed extension of the information collection requests (ICRs) contained in the documents described below. A copy of the ICRs may be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the Addresses section on or before June 11, 2018.
G. Christopher Cosby, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210,
This notice requests public comment on the Department's request for extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of ICRs contained in the rules and prohibited transaction exemptions described below. The Department is not proposing any changes to the existing ICRs at this time. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. A summary of the ICRs and the current burden estimates follows:
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,668.
The notice requirements of section 101(e) are two-fold. First, subsection (e)(1) requires plan administrators to provide advance written notification of such transfers to participants and beneficiaries. Second, subsection (e)(2)(A) requires employers to provide advance written notification of such transfers to the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury, the plan administrator, and each employee organization representing participants in the plan. Both notices must be given at least 60 days before the transfer date. The two subsections prescribe the information to be included in each type of notice and further give the Secretary of Labor the authority to prescribe how notice to participants and beneficiaries must be given and any additional reporting requirements deemed necessary.
Although the Department of Labor has not issued regulations under section 101(e), on May 8, 1991, the Department published ERISA Technical Release 91-1, to provide guidance on how to satisfy the notice requirements prescribed by this section. The Technical Release made two changes in the statutory requirements for the second type of notice. First, it required the notice to include a filing date and the intended asset transfer date. Second, it simplified the statutory filing requirements by providing that filing with the Department of Labor would be deemed sufficient notice to both the Department and the Department of the Treasury as required under the statute. The ICR was approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1210-0084 and is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2018.
Beginning with plan year filings for 2009, Form 5500 filings are processed under a new system, the ERISA Filing Acceptance System 2 (EFAST-2), which is designed to simplify and expedite the receipt and processing of the Form 5500 by relying on internet-based forms and electronic filing technologies. In order to file electronically, employee benefit plan filing authors, schedule authors, filing signers, Form 5500 transmitters, and entities developing software to complete and/or transmit the Form 5500 are required to register for EFAST-2 credentials through the EFAST-2 website. Requested information includes: Applicant type (filing author, filing signer, schedule author, transmitter, or software developer); mailing address; fax number (optional); email address; company name, contact person; and daytime telephone number. Registrants must also provide an answer to a challenge question (“What is your date of birth?” or “Where is your place of birth?”), which enables users to retrieve forgotten credentials. In addition, registrants must accept a Privacy Agreement; PIN Agreement; and, under penalty of perjury, a Signature Agreement. The ICR was approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1210-0117 and is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2018.
PTE 94-71. Granted on September 30, 1994, PTE 94-71 exempts from certain restrictions of ERISA and certain taxes imposed by the Code, a transaction or activity that is authorized, prior to the execution of the transaction or activity, by a settlement agreement resulting from an investigation of an employee benefit plan conducted by the Department.
PTE 2003-39. Granted on December 31, 2005, PTE 03-39 exempts from certain restrictions of ERISA and certain taxes imposed by the Code, transactions arising out of the settlement of litigation that involve the release of claims against parties in interest in exchange for payment by or on behalf of the party in interest, provided that certain conditions are met.
Because both exemptions involve settlement agreements, the Department has combined their information collection provisions into one ICR and has obtained OMB approval for their paperwork burden. The Department believes that the public and the Federal government are both best served by allowing the public to review and comment on similar exemption
In order for the Department to grant an exemption for a transaction or class of transactions that would otherwise be prohibited under ERISA, the statute requires the Department to make a finding that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interest of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries. To ensure that Managers have complied with the requirements of the exemption, the Department has included in the exemption certain recordkeeping and disclosure obligations that are designed to safeguard plan assets by periodically providing information to plan fiduciaries, who generally must be independent from the cross-trading program. Initially, where plans are not invested in Funds, Managers must furnish information to plan fiduciaries about the cross-trading program, provide a statement that the Manager will have a potentially conflicting division of loyalties, and obtain written authorization from a plan fiduciary for a plan to participate in a cross-trading program. For plans that are currently invested in Funds, the Manager must provide annual notices to update the plan fiduciary and provide the plan with an opportunity to withdraw from the program. For Large Accounts, prior to the cross-trade, the Manager must provide information about the cross-trading program and obtain written authorization from the fiduciary of a Large Account to engage in cross-trading in connection with a portfolio restructuring program. Following completion of the Large Account's restructuring, information must be provided by the Manager about all cross-trades executed in connection with a portfolio-restructuring program. Finally, the exemption requires that Managers maintain for a period of 6 years from the date of each cross-trade the records necessary to enable plan fiduciaries and certain other persons specified in the exemption (
The ICR was approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1210-0113 and is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2018.
The exemption allows individual account plans (Plans) established by Trust REITS to offer a beneficial interest in the Trust REIT in the form of Qualifying REIT Shares, as defined in the exemption, to participants in Plans sponsored by the REIT or its employer affiliates, to require that employer contributions be used to purchase such shares, and to permit “contributions in kind” of such shares to these Plans by employers.
The exemption conditions relief on compliance with a number of information collection requirements. These information collections are to be provided or made available to plan participants and fiduciaries in order to inform them about investments in Qualifying REIT Shares and the conditions of the exemption permitting share transactions. Records sufficient to allow them to determine whether the exemption conditions are met must also be maintained, and made available to them upon request, for a period of six years. These records must also be made available on request to employers and employee organizations with employees and members covered by a Plan of the
1. Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA) Regulation: The QTA regulation creates an orderly and efficient process by which a financial institution that holds the assets of a plan that is deemed to have been abandoned may undertake to terminate the plan and distribute its assets to participants and beneficiaries holding accounts under the plan, with protections and approval of the Department under the standards of the regulation. The regulation requires the QTA to provide certain notices to the Department, to participants and beneficiaries, and to the plan sponsor (or service providers to the plan, if necessary), and to keep certain records pertaining to the termination.
2. Abandoned Plan Terminal Report Regulation: The terminal report regulation provides an alternative, simplified method for a QTA to satisfy the annual report requirement otherwise applicable to a terminating plan by filing a special simplified terminal report with the Department after terminating an abandoned plan and distributing the remaining assets in the individual account plans to participants and beneficiaries.
3. Terminated Plan Distribution Regulation: The terminated plan distribution regulation establishes a safe harbor method by which fiduciaries who are terminating individual account pension plans (whether abandoned or not) may select an investment vehicle to receive account balances distributed from the terminated plan when the participant has failed to provide investment instructions. The regulation requires the fiduciaries to provide advance notice to participants and beneficiaries of how such distributions will be invested, if no other investment instructions are provided.
4. Abandoned Plan Class Exemption: The exemption permits a QTA that terminates an abandoned plan under the QTA regulation to receive payment for its services from the abandoned plan and to distribute the account balance of a participant who has failed to provide investment direction into an individual retirement account (IRA) maintained by the QTA or an affiliate. Without the exemption, financial institutions would be unable to receive payment for services rendered out of plan assets without violating ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions and would therefore be highly unlikely to undertake the termination of abandoned plans. The exemption includes the condition that the QTA keep records of the distributions for a period of six years and make such records available on request to interested persons (including the Department and participants and beneficiaries). If a QTA wishes to be paid out of plan assets for services provided prior to becoming a QTA, the exemption requires that the QTA enter into a written agreement with a plan fiduciary or the plan sponsor prior to receiving payment and that a copy of the agreement be provided to the Department.
5. PTE 2004-16 (Automatic Rollover Exemption): Also included in this ICR are the notice and recordkeeping requirements contained in PTE 2004-16, which permits a pension plan fiduciary that is a financial institution and is also the employer maintaining an individual account pension plan for its employees to establish, on behalf of its separated employees, an IRA at a financial institution that is either the employer or an affiliate, which IRA would receive mandatory distributions that the fiduciary “rolls over” from the plan when an employee terminates employment.
Because all of these regulations and exemptions relate to terminating or abandoned plans and/or to distribution and rollover of distributed benefits for which no participant investment election has been made, the Department has combined the paperwork burden for all of these actions into one ICR. In the Department's view, this combination allows the public to have a better understanding of the aggregate burden imposed on the public for these related regulatory actions. The ICR was approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1210-0127 and is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2018.
The Department is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICRs for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Shipyard Employment Standards of Subpart G—Gear and
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 11, 2018.
Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
The records are used to ensure that equipment has been properly tested. The records also provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase in the existing burden hour estimate for the collection of information requirements specified by the Standards from 9,773 hours to 11,813 hours, a total increase of 2,040 hours. This increase is due to an increase in the number of establishments using this equipment. In this ICR, the scope of the maritime standards in 29 CFR part 1915 for slings, shackles, and hooks are based on the Final Economic Analysis for the Final Rule revising 29 CFR part 1915, subpart F prepared by OSHA's Office of Regulatory Analysis. As a result of the Final Rule, the revision of the standard applies to all shipyard employment which is defined in § 1915.4(i) as ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related employment. Also, upon further analysis, the Agency identified two new collections of information contained in the Standard under paragraphs §§ 1915.112(c)(2) and 1915.115(c)(1). The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice, request for comments on this collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this notice,
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before June 8, 2018.
Send comments to: Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of the Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of the Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718 Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's approximately 120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. Our mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit
Native Hawaiian grants are competitive grants available to carry out activities, described in 20 U.S.C. 9141, that enhance existing library services or implement new library services. Native Hawaiian Library Services grants are available to nonprofit organizations that primarily serve and represent Native Hawaiians (as the term is defined in 20 U.S.C. 7517). The term “Native Hawaiian” refers to an individual who is a citizen of the United States and a descendant of the aboriginal people who, before 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now comprises the State of Hawaii. Successful Native Hawaiian grant projects should result in measureable changes and outcomes, such as increased understanding, interest, and confidence among participants. Successful Native Hawaiian grant projects support the activities described in 20 U.S.C. 9141, for example:
• Support for individuals' needs for education, lifelong learning, workforce development, and digital literacy skills;
• Improvement of the quality of and access to library and information services; and
• Enhancement of the skills of the current library workforce and leadership.
This action is to renew the forms and instructions for the Notice of Funding Opportunities for the next three years.
IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Submission for OMB review, comment request.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Dr. Sandra Webb, Director of Grant Policy and Management, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718, Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's 120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. The Institute's mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit
All proposals submitted for IMLS competitive awards are reviewed by library and museum professionals who know the needs of communities, can share promising practices, and are well versed in the issues and concerns of museums and libraries today. Peer reviewers dedicate their time and expertise to advance the highest professional practices in the field. The IMLS review process is well respected, and the success of our grant programs is largely due to the expertise of our reviewers. These Peer Reviewer Nomination forms, accessed through the IMLS website, allow library and museum professionals to indicate their interest and expertise to be considered for selection as an IMLS peer reviewer. There are two forms, one for library professionals and one for museum professionals.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Notice, request for comments on this collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this notice, IMLS is soliciting comments concerning a plan to offer a grant program targeted to the needs of Native American libraries, aligned to the updated IMLS Strategic Framework for 2019-2021, IMLS Native American Basic Library Program.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before June 8, 2018.
Send comments to: Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of the Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718, Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of the Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718, Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's approximately 120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. Our mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit
Native American Basic Grants support existing library operations and maintain core library services, particularly as they relate to the following goals in the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9141).
1. Expanding services for learning and access to information and educational resources in a variety of formats, in all types of libraries, for individuals of all ages in order to support such individuals' need for education, lifelong learning, workforce development, and digital library skills.
2. Establishing or enhancing electronic and other linkages and improved coordination among and between libraries and entities, as described in 20 U.S.C. 9134(b)(6), for the purpose of improving the quality of
3. (a) Providing training and professional development, including continuing education, to enhance the skills of the current library workforce and leadership, and advance the delivery of library and information services.
(b) Enhancing efforts to recruit future professionals to the field of library and information services.
4. Developing public and private partnerships with other agencies and community-based organizations.
5. Targeting library services to individuals of diverse geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, to individuals with disabilities, and to individuals with limited functional literacy or information skills.
6. Targeting library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to underserved urban and rural communities, including children (from birth through age 17) from families with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 9902(2) of Title 42) applicable to a family of the size involved.
7. Developing library services that provide all users access to information through local, State, regional, national, and international collaborations and networks.
8. Carrying out other activities consistent with the purposes of the Library Services and Technology subchapter of the IMLS statute (20 U.S.C. 9121).
Indian tribes are eligible to apply for funding under the Native American Library Services Enhancement Grant program. Entities such as libraries, schools, tribal colleges, or departments of education are not eligible applicants, although they may be involved in the administration of this program and their staff may serve as project directors in partnership with an eligible applicant.
For purposes of funding under this program, “Indian tribe” means any tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska native village, regional corporation, or village corporation (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
To be eligible for this program you must be able to document an existing library that meets, at a minimum, three basic criteria: (1) Regularly scheduled hours, (2) staff, and (3) materials available for library users.
This action is to renew the forms and instructions for the Notice of Funding Opportunities for the next three years.
IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2017-08, “Process for Scheduling and Allocating Resources for Fiscal Years 2020 through 2022 for the Review of New Licensing Applications for Light-Water Reactors and Non-Light Water Reactors.”
Submit comments by May 11, 2018.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Brandon De Bruhl, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0228), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-0710, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0180 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2017-08, “Process for Scheduling and Allocating Resources for Fiscal Years 2020 through 2022 for the Review of New Licensing Applications for Light-Water Reactors and Non-Light Water Reactors.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Abstract: This voluntary information collection assists the NRC in determining resource and budget needs, as well as aligning the proper allocation and utilization of resources to support applicant submittals, future construction-related activities, and other anticipated part 50 and/or part 52 of title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The April 16, 2018 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2018-135 and CP2018-196; MC2018-136 and CP2018-197; MC2018-137 and CP2018-198; MC2018-138 and CP2018-199; MC2018-139 and CP2018-200.
The April 17, 2018 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2018-140 and CP2018-201; MC2018-141 and CP2018-202.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 6, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDC”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds.
Benefit Street Partners BDC, Inc. (“BSP BDC”), Providence Flexible Credit Allocation Fund (“Providence Flexible Credit”), Business Development Corporation of America (“BDCA,” together with BSP BDC and Providence Flexible Credit, the “Existing Regulated Funds”), Providence TMT Debt Opportunity Fund II L.P. (“Fund II”), PECM Strategic Funding L.P. (“Strategic Funding”), SEI Energy Debt Fund, LP (“SEI Fund”), Providence Debt Fund III L.P. (“Fund III”), Providence Debt Fund III Master (Non-US) L.P. (“Fund III Offshore”), Benefit Street Partners Capital Opportunity Fund L.P. (“BSP Capital Fund”), Benefit Street Partners Capital Opportunity Fund II L.P. (“BSP Capital Fund II”), Benefit Street Partners SMA LM L.P. (“Benefit Street LM”), Benefit Street Partners SMA-C L.P. (“Benefit Street SMA-C”), Benefit Street Partners Senior Secured Opportunities Fund L.P. (“Benefit Street Senior Secured”), Benefit Street Partners Senior Secured Opportunities Master Fund (Non-US) L.P. (“Benefit Street Senior Secured Offshore”), Benefit Street Partners Senior Secured Opportunities (U) Fund (Non-US) L.P. (“Opportunities (U) Fund”), Benefit Street Partners Senior Secured Opportunities (U) Master Fund (Non-US) L.P. (“Opportunities (U) Master Fund”), BSP Special Situations Master A L.P. (“BSP Master A”), BSP Special Situations Master B L.P. (“BSP Master B”), Benefit Street Partners Debt Fund IV L.P. (“Fund IV”), Benefit Street Partners Debt Fund IV Master (Non-US) L.P. (“Fund IV Offshore”), Benefit Street Partners SMA-T L.P. (“SMA-T” and each of Fund II, Strategic Funding, SEI Fund, Fund III, Fund III Offshore, BSP Capital Fund, BSP Capital Fund II, Benefit Street LM, Benefit Street SMA-C, Benefit Street Senior Secured, Benefit Street Senior Secured Offshore, Opportunities (U) Fund, Opportunities (U) Master Fund, BSP Master A, BSP Master B, Fund IV and Fund IV Offshore is referred to as an “Existing Affiliated Fund” and collectively, the “Existing Affiliated Funds”), Providence Equity Capital Markets L.L.C. (“Fund II Affiliated Adviser”), Benefit Street Partners L.L.C. (“BSP Adviser”), BDCA Adviser, LLC (“BDCA Adviser”), and SEI Investments Management Corporation (“SEI Adviser”).
The application was filed on January 15, 2016, and amended on January 9, 2017, June 23, 2017, and December 13, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 30, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: BSP BDC, Providence Flexible Credit, BDCA, Fund II, Strategic Funding, Fund III, Fund III Offshore, BSP Capital Fund, BSP Capital Fund II, Benefit Street LM, Benefit Street SMA-C, Benefit Street Senior Secured, Benefit Street Senior Secured Offshore, Opportunities (U) Fund, Opportunities (U) Master Fund, BSP Master A, BSP Master B, Fund IV, Fund IV Offshore, SMA-T, Fund II Affiliated Adviser, BSP Adviser, and BDCA Adviser, 9 West 57th Street, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10019; SEI Fund and SEI Adviser, One Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, PA 19456.
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6879 or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. BSP BDC is a Maryland corporation organized as a closed-end management investment company that intends to elect to be regulated as a BDC under section 54(a) of the Act.
2. Providence Flexible Credit is a Massachusetts business trust organized as closed-end investment company registered under the Act. Providence Flexible Credit's Objectives and Strategies are to seek total return through a combination of current income and capital appreciation. Providence Flexible Credit will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in a portfolio of (i) secured loans made primarily to companies whose debt is below investment grade quality; (ii) corporate
3. BDCA is a Maryland corporation organized as a closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under the Act. BDCA's Objectives and Strategies are to generate both current income and capital appreciation by primarily investing in senior secured loans and mezzanine debt issued by middle market companies. BDCA's Board consists of seven members, a majority of whom are Non-Interested Directors.
4. Each of the Affiliated Funds (defined below) would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act. Each Affiliated Fund has, or will have, investment objectives and strategies that are similar to or that overlap with the Regulated Funds' Objectives and Strategies.
5. Fund II Affiliated Adviser, BSP Adviser, and BDCA Adviser are each Delaware limited liability companies registered as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Applicants state that the Providence Advisers (defined below) are controlled by their principal owners (the “Principals”) and are thus affiliated persons of each other as described by section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act. Fund II Affiliated Adviser serves as investment adviser to Fund II and Strategic Funding. BSP Adviser serves as investment adviser to BSP BDC, Providence Flexible Credit, Fund III, Fund III Offshore, BSP Capital Fund, BSP Capital Fund II, Benefit Street LM, Benefit Street SMA-C, Benefit Street Senior Secured, Benefit Street Senior Secured Offshore, Opportunities (U) Fund, Opportunities (U) Master Fund, BSP Master A, BSP Master B, Fund IV, Fund IV Offshore, and SMA-T. In addition, BSP Adviser serves as sub-adviser to SEI Fund, whose investment adviser, SEI Adviser, is not affiliated with BSP Adviser. BDCA Adviser serves as investment adviser to BDCA.
6. SEI Adviser is a Delaware corporation registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. SEI Adviser serves as investment adviser to SEI Fund. As noted above, BSP Adviser serves as Sub-Adviser to SEI Fund. SEI Adviser is not an affiliated person of any Providence Adviser.
7. Applicants seek to supersede the Prior Order
8. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub.
9. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any Regulated Fund, the Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) will consider only the Objectives and
10. Applicants state that SEI Adviser serves as investment adviser to SEI Fund, while BSP Adviser serves as sub-adviser. Applicants represent that SEI Adviser is responsible for the overall management of SEI Fund's activities, and BSP Adviser is responsible for the day-to-day management of SEI Fund's investment portfolio. Applicants represent that although BSP Adviser identifies and recommends investments for SEI Fund, SEI Adviser has ultimate authority with respect to SEI Fund's investments.
11. Applicants represent that each Providence Adviser has adopted allocation policies and procedures which are designed to allocate investment opportunities fairly and equitably among their clients over time. Applicants state that in the case of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Providence Adviser applies its allocation policies and procedures in determining the proposed allocation for the applicable Regulated Fund consistent with the requirements of condition 2(a). Applicants state that, as a result, all Potential Co-Investment Transactions that are presented to any Providence Adviser would also be presented to each Providence Adviser advising or sub-advising a Regulated Fund, which, as required by condition 1, would make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investments for such Regulated Fund.
12. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the applicable Adviser(s) will present each Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act (“Eligible Directors”), and the “required majority,” as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (“Required Majority”)
13. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The Board of any Regulated Fund may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be submitted to the Eligible Directors.
14. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than indirectly through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
15. Under condition 15, if the Providence Advisers, the Principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Providence Advisers or the Principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of a Regulated Fund (“Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the condition. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Non-Interested Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Providence Advisers or the Principals to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Non-Interested Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Non-Interested Directors will evaluate and approve any such independent party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit participation by a registered investment company and an affiliated person in any “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” as defined in the rule, without prior approval by the Commission by order upon application. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies. Similarly, with regard to BDCs, section 57(a)(4) of the Act generally prohibits certain persons specified in section 57(b) from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by the BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs.
2. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
3. Applicants submit that each of the other Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds may be deemed to be affiliated persons of a Regulated Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act by reason of common control because (i) a Providence Adviser may be deemed to control each of the Existing Regulated Funds and the Existing Affiliated Funds, (ii) a Providence Adviser may be deemed to control any Future Regulated Funds or Future Affiliated Funds, (iii) the Providence Advisers are owned and controlled by the Principals and (iv) a Providence Adviser sub-advises SEI Fund and, therefore, SEI Fund may be deemed to be under common control with the Existing Regulated Funds. As a result, a Regulated Fund and one or more other
4. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, in some circumstances the Regulated Funds would be limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions of the application will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and would be done in a manner that is not different from, or less advantageous than, that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time a Providence Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, each Adviser to the Regulated Fund will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for such Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If each Adviser to a Regulated Fund deems the participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, the Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) to a Regulated Fund to be invested by the Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) to each participating Regulated Fund will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with information concerning each participating party's Available Capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the shareholders of the Regulated Fund; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or any Affiliated Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds; provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority from reaching the conclusions required by this condition (2)(c)(iii), if:
(A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of an Affiliated Fund or a Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Advisers, the Affiliated Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8,
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Providence Adviser will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Fund in the disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(d) Each Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such disposition.
8. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Providence Adviser will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application). In all other cases, the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one) will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Affiliated Funds' and the Regulated Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser(s) to be invested by each Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the participating Affiliated Funds in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity; then the amount invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each.
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.
11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act) of an Affiliated Fund.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective investment advisory agreements with the Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or to be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25% of the Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any other matter under either the Act or applicable State law affecting the Board's composition, size or manner of election.
15. Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the delay for re-introduction of functionality which permits Market Makers to enter quotes in certain symbols for complex strategies on the complex order book in their appointed options classes by an additional one 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 functionality which permits Market Makers to enter quotes in certain symbols for complex strategies on the complex order book in their appointed options classes by an additional one year. The Exchange filed a rule change to designate that a symbol would not be eligible for Market Maker quotes in the complex order book after the symbol migrated to the INET
By way of background, prior to the delay in re-introducing the quoting functionality, ISE's rules permitted Market Makers to enter quotes in certain symbols for complex strategies on the complex order book in their appointed options classes. Market Maker quotes for complex strategies were not automatically executed against bids and offers on the Exchange for the individual legs nor marked for price improvement.
When the Exchange initially delayed this functionality which permitted Market Makers to enter quotes in certain symbols for complex strategies on the complex order book in their appointed options classes, the Exchange noted that it would re-introduce the functionality within one year from the date of that filing. The Exchange filed the initial rule change on April 26, 2017, with a one year delay, and the additional one year delay would extend the implementation timeframe for this functionality to April 26, 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 would be available. Furthermore, in connection with this change, the Exchange also proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to 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 is also proposing to amend a typographical error to correct a misspelled word in the current Rule text at Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 722.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Delaying the reintroduction of the quoting functionality will provide additional time to test and implement this functionality. Today, symbols trade in price/time. Within a year from the date of filing this rule change, the Exchange will offer complex quoting functionality. Thereafter, the Exchange may offer the complex quoting for specified symbols from time to time with notice to members. At the time the Exchange designates a symbol as available for complex quoting, it would also designate the allocation methodology for that symbol pursuant to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i).
Even though the complex quoting functionality will not be available, Market Makers will still be able to submit complex orders. The Exchange has not experienced any significant impact with respect to execution quality. The Exchange notes that Phlx does not offer complex order quoting functionality.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impact the intense competition that exists in the options market. 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. Members will be able to continue to submit complex orders on ISE. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition because all members uniformly will not be able to submit Market Maker quotes in the complex order book.
Within a year from the date of filing this rule change, the Exchange will offer complex quoting functionality. Thereafter, the Exchange may offer complex quoting for specified symbols from time to time with notice to members. At the time the Exchange designates a symbol as available for complex quoting, it will also designate the allocation methodology for that symbol pursuant to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i).
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 become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to modify the rebates it provides to Members that send unsolicited Crossing Orders
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ISE's Schedule of Fees to replace the current Member Order Routing Program (“MORP”), which provides enhanced rebates to order routing firms that select the Exchange as the default routing destination for unsolicited Crossing Orders, and the Customer to Customer Rebate PLUS program,
As noted above, the MORP is a program that provides rebates to firms that select the Exchange as their default routing destination for unsolicited Crossing Orders. To be eligible to participate in MORP, an Electronic Access Member (“EAM”) must: (1) Designate to the Exchange, in writing, those sessions (connections to the Exchange over which the firm submits orders) that meet the following MORP criteria; (2) provide systems to its clients that enable the electronic routing of option orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including ISE; (3) interface with ISE to access the Exchange's electronic options trading platform; (4) offer to its clients a customized interface and routing functionality such that ISE will be the default destination for all unsolicited Crossing Orders entered by the EAM, provided that market conditions allow the Crossing Order to be executed on ISE; (5) configure its own option order routing functionality such that ISE will be the default destination for all unsolicited Crossing Orders, provided that market conditions
An EAM that is MORP-eligible currently receives a rebate for all unsolicited Crossing Orders of $0.05 per originating contract side, provided that the Member executes a minimum average daily volume (“ADV”) in unsolicited Crossing Orders of at least 30,000 originating contract sides. This rebate increases to $0.07 per originating contract side, provided that the Member executes a higher ADV in unsolicited Crossing Orders of 100,000 originating contract sides. The rebate for the highest tier achieved is applied retroactively to all eligible contracts traded in a given month.
In addition, any EAM that qualifies for the MORP rebate by executing an ADV of 30,000 originating contract sides or more is also eligible for increased Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates
The MORP program was designed to encourage order routing firms to execute additional unsolicited Crossing Order volume on the ISE. However, the Exchange has concluded that the MORP program has not fulfilled its intended purpose due, in large part, to the fact that the conditions for participation in the program have proven to be onerous. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the MORP program and, as discussed below, the Exchange proposes to replace it with the proposed PIM and Facilitation Rebate program, described below.
As part of the QCC and Solicitation Rebate program, the Exchange presently offers a set of rebates called “Customer to Customer” Rebate PLUS.
As a means of consolidating its incentive programs relating to unsolicited Crossing orders, and to provide more direct incentives to encourage such orders, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Customer to Customer Rebate PLUS program and replace it with the proposed PIM and Facilitation Rebate, described below.
In lieu of the MORP and the Customer to Customer Rebate PLUS program, the Exchange proposes to incentivize the flow of unsolicited Crossing Orders to the Exchange by establishing a PIM and Facilitation Rebate program. This proposed program would offer rebates to Members that use the Facilitation Mechanism or PIM for unsolicited Crossing Orders whereby the contra-side of those orders: (1) Is either Firm Proprietary or Broker-Dealer; and (2) has total affiliated ADV
To the extent that Members qualify for the foregoing rebate, they may also become eligible for two additional rebates on the originating contract sides of their unsolicited Crossing Orders. First, if Members separately achieve, on a cumulative basis, more than 1,000,000 QCC and Solicitation Order Mechanism
The combination of the base rebate and the additional rebates will offer Members that use the Facilitation Mechanism or PIM for unsolicited Crossing Orders an opportunity to receive as much as $0.06 in rebates per originating contract side.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . ..”
The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate the MORP is reasonable because the MORP has proven to be ineffective in achieving its aim of attracting additional unsolicited Crossing Order flow to the Exchange. The conditions for participation in the MORP have proven to be too onerous for Members. Furthermore, the Exchange has limited resources available to it to devote to the operation of special pricing programs and as such, it is equitable to allocate those resources to those programs that are effective and away from those programs that are ineffective. The proposal to eliminate the MORP is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal will apply uniformly to all similarly situated Members.
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Customer to Customer Rebate PLUS program is also both reasonable and equitable because this program provides only an indirect incentive to Members to send unsolicited Crossing Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange prefers to re-allocate its limited resources to the provision of a stronger and more direct incentive. The proposal to eliminate the Customer to Customer Rebate PLUS program is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal will apply uniformly to all similarly situated Members.
The Exchange's proposal to replace the MORP and the Customer to Customer Rebate PLUS program with the PIM and Facilitation Rebate program is also reasonable and equitable. The Exchange expects the PIM and Facilitation program will complement its QCC and Solicitation Rebate program for solicited Crossing Orders and it will provide a more easily accessible, direct, and effective incentive for Members to send their unsolicited Crossing Orders to the Exchange. In particular, the proposal will encourage Members to send unsolicited PIM and Facilitation orders to the Exchange and to meet the 200,000 contract threshold to obtain the higher $0.03 base rebate.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebates for unsolicited Crossing Orders in the PIM and Facilitation Mechanism are not unfairly discriminatory. Although the proposal is focused on incentives for unsolicited Crossing Orders, it replaces existing Exchange rebate programs with a similar aim. In any event, the Exchange already maintains a robust QCC and Solicitation Rebate program of incentives for members that submit solicited Crossing Orders to the QCC or the Solicitation, Facilitation, or Price Improvement Mechanisms. Furthermore, the Exchange's decision to limit program eligibility to those unsolicited Crossing Orders that involve Firm Proprietary or Broker Dealer contra-side parties is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange wishes to encourage the direct submission by Members of Crossing Orders to the Exchange, and as a matter of practice, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer orders are most likely to directly submitted by Members as these participant types typically utilize the crossing fee cap on ISE and have increased incentive to pre-pay for their Crossing Orders. Finally, the Exchange will apply the proposed rebates uniformly to all Members' orders that meet the required volume thresholds.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes to the Exchange's rebate programs are intended to attract additional order flow to ISE. The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance the competiveness of the ISE relative to other options exchanges.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”) provides that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) may recognize, as generally accepted for purposes of the securities laws, any accounting principles established by a standard setting body that meets certain criteria. Consequently, Section 109 of the Act provides that all of the budget of such a standard setting body shall be payable from an annual accounting support fee assessed and collected against each issuer, as may be necessary or appropriate to pay for the budget and provide for the expenses of the standard setting body, and to provide for an independent, stable source of funding, subject to review by the Commission. Under Section 109(f) of the Act, the amount of fees collected for a fiscal year shall not exceed the “recoverable budget expenses” of the standard setting body. Section 109(h) amends Section 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to pay the allocable share of a reasonable annual accounting support fee or fees, determined in accordance with Section 109 of the Act.
On April 25, 2003, the Commission issued a policy statement concluding that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and its parent organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation (“FAF”), satisfied the criteria for an accounting standard-setting body under the Act, and recognizing the FASB's financial accounting and reporting standards as “generally accepted” under Section 108 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act also provides that the standard setting body can have additional sources of revenue for its activities, such as earnings from sales of publications, provided that each additional source of revenue shall not jeopardize, in the judgment of the Commission, the actual or perceived independence of the standard setter. In this regard, the Commission also considered the interrelation of the operating budgets of the FAF, the FASB, and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”), the FASB's sister organization, which sets accounting standards used by state and local government entities. The Commission has been advised by the FAF that neither the FAF, the FASB, nor the GASB accept contributions from the accounting profession.
The Commission understands that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined the FASB's spending of the 2018 accounting support fee is sequestrable under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
The Commission requests that the FAF and the FASB continue to provide the Commission with quarterly updates of their activities, including but not limited to their efforts to include a wide-range of views from investors, preparers, auditors, academics, and other constituent groups, and their efforts to improve the selection process for FASB and FAF members.
After its review, the Commission determined that the 2018 annual accounting support fee for the FASB is consistent with Section 109 of the Act. Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to make changes to certain representations made in the proposed rule change previously filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 relating to ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF and ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, shares of which currently are listed and traded under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Commission has approved the listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (“Shares”) of the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (the “Short Fund”) and ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (the “Ultra Fund” and, together with the Short Fund, the “Funds”) under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02 (formerly NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts.
The Shares are issued by ProShares Trust II (the “Trust”). ProShare Capital Management LLC (“Sponsor”) serves as the Trust's Sponsor.
In this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to amend certain representations made in the Prior Notice relating to each Fund's investment
The Sponsor believes the change to each Fund's investment objective (as described herein) is appropriate and consistent with the best interest of each Fund and Fund shareholders in light of recent extreme changes in the value of the S&P 500 ® VIX Short-Term Futures Index (the “Index”). As a result of the change to each Fund's investment objective, the Sponsor expects the risk profile and volatility of each Fund to be significantly reduced.
As stated in the Prior Notice, each Fund seeks, on a daily basis, to provide investment results (before fees and expenses) that correspond to the inverse of the daily performance or a multiple of the daily performance of a benchmark (
If the Short Fund is successful in meeting its objective, its value (before fees and expenses) should gain approximately as much on a percentage basis as its Index when the Index declines on a given day. Conversely, its value (before fees and expenses) should lose approximately as much on a percentage basis as its Index when the Index rises on a given day.
If the Ultra Fund is successful in meeting its objective, its value (before fees and expenses) should gain approximately twice as much on a percentage basis as its Index when the Index rises on a given day. Conversely, its value (before fees and expenses) should lose approximately twice as much on a percentage basis as its Index when the Index declines on a given day.
As of the close of business on February 27, 2018, the Short Fund changed its investment objective to seek results (before fees and expenses) that correspond to one-half the inverse (−0.5x) of the performance of the Index for a single day. The Ultra Fund changed its investment objective to seek results (before fees and expenses) that correspond to one and one-half times (1.5x) of the performance of the Index for a single day.
As a result of the change to each Fund's investment objective, the Exchange proposes to amend the representations in the Prior Notice described in the preceding two paragraphs as follows.
If the Short Fund is successful in meeting its objective, its value (before fees and expenses) should gain approximately half as much on a percentage basis as its Index when the Index declines on a given day. Conversely, its value (before fees and expenses) should lose approximately half as much on a percentage basis as the Index when the Index rises on a given day.
If the Ultra Fund is successful in meeting its objective, its value (before fees and expenses) should gain approximately 1.5 times as much on a percentage basis as its Index when the Index rises on a given day. Conversely, its value (before fees and expenses) should lose approximately 1.5 times as much on a percentage basis as its Index when the Index declines on a given day.
The Prior Notice stated that the Funds do not seek to achieve their stated investment objective over a period of time greater than one day because mathematical compounding prevents the Funds from perfectly achieving such results. Accordingly, as noted in the Prior Notice, results over periods of time greater than one day typically will not be a simple inverse correlation (−100%) or multiple correlation (+200%) of the period return of the Index and may differ significantly.
As a result of the change to each Fund's investment objective, the Exchange proposes to amend the representations in the preceding paragraph with respect to the Short Fund and the Ultra Fund as described below.
The Funds do not seek to achieve their stated investment objective over a period of time greater than one day because mathematical compounding prevents the Funds from perfectly achieving such results. Accordingly, results over periods of time greater than one day typically will not be a simple one-half of the inverse correlation (−50%) or multiple correlation (+150%) of the period return of the Index and may differ significantly.
The Prior Notice stated that NYSE Arca will calculate and disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.) an updated Intraday Optimized Portfolio Value (“IOPV”). The Prior Notice also stated that the IOPV will be calculated by the NYSE Arca using the prior day's closing net assets of a Fund as a base and updating throughout the trading day changes in the value of such Fund's holdings. The Exchange proposes to amend these representations to state that the IOPV will be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds throughout the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session, and that the IOPV will be calculated using the prior day's closing net assets of a Fund as a base and updating throughout the trading day changes in the value of such Fund's holdings, consistent with the Exchange's previous proposed rule change regarding calculation of the Intraday Indicative Value for specified Exchange-Traded Products.
Except for the changes noted above, all other statements and representations made in the Prior Notice remain unchanged.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest.
Consistent with the representations in the Prior Notice, each Fund will continue to seek to achieve its investment objective by investing under normal market conditions in VIX Futures Contracts.
As a result of the change to each Fund's investment objective, the Exchange is proposing to amend representations in the Prior Notice regarding the correlation of the value of the Shares of the Short Fund and the Ultra Fund with the Index.
The Short Fund previously had an investment objective to seek results (before fees and expenses) that correspond to the inverse (−1x) of the performance of the Index for a single day. As of February 27, 2018, the Fund's objective was changed to seek results (before fees and expenses) that correspond to one-half of the inverse (−0.5x) of the performance of the Index for a single day.
The Ultra Fund previously had an investment objective to seek results (before fees and expenses) that correspond to two times (2x) the performance of the Index for a single day. As of the close of business on February 27, 2018, the Fund's objective was changed to seek results (before fees and expenses) that correspond to one and one-half times (1.5x) of the performance of the Index for a single day.
The Sponsor believes the change to each Fund's investment objective is appropriate and consistent with the best interest of each Fund and Fund shareholders in light of recent extreme changes in the value of the Index. As a result of the change to each Fund's investment objective, the Sponsor expects the risk profile and volatility of each Fund to be significantly reduced.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the representations in the Prior Notice regarding the IOPV calculation and dissemination as described above reflects changes that are consistent with the Exchange's previous proposed rule change regarding calculation of the Intraday Indicative Value for specified Exchange-Traded Products.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition and benefit investors and the marketplace by permitting continued listing and trading of Shares of the Funds with their revised investment objectives, as described above.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to provide greater clarity as to how the Exchange currently charges complex orders executed during an exposure auction pursuant to Rule 722(b)(3)(iii) (“Exposure Auction”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to provide greater clarity as to how the Exchange currently charges complex orders executed during an Exposure Auction pursuant to Rule 722(b)(3)(iii). An Exposure Auction is automatically initiated when a member submits an eligible complex order that is marked for price improvement.
Thus, based on current rates, the Exchange charges the originating side of Non-Priority Customer
When Non-Priority Customer orders trade against Priority Customer
When Non-Priority Customer orders trade against Priority Customer orders in Exposure Auctions and the originating side is a Priority Customer order, the originating side receives the tiered rebate in Select and Non-Select Symbols, as discussed above. The contra side Non-Priority Customer is charged the taker fee in Select and Non-Select Symbols, as discussed above.
While the proposed change discussed above is consistent with current practice, the Exchange believes that the clarifications will eliminate any potential confusion around how Exposure Auction orders are charged today.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address any competitive issues but rather to provide more clarity and transparency regarding how Exposure Auction orders are charged today. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, hereby gives notice that the Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) will hold a public meeting via teleconference to discuss the next session of the UNCITRAL WG VI (Security Interests). The next meeting of UNCITRAL Working Group VI is scheduled for April 30-May 4, 2018. This public meeting is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
This public meeting will discuss the Draft Practice Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions. The Draft Practice Guide provides guidance to users of the Model Law on Secured Transactions on (1) the types of financing transactions that are possible under the law, (2) how to do a number of common and commercially important types of secured transactions, and (3) how to coordinate between the Law and the State's prudential regulatory framework. Additionally, the Working Group will discuss possible future work. Documents for the session are available at
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the St. Louis County Courthouse, 105 S. Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2018, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.
St. Louis County Courthouse, 105 S. Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 20190, 571-313-8843,
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the approved by rule projects rescinded by the
February 1-28, 2018.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, being rescinded for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. EQT Production Company, Pad ID: Phoenix H, ABR-201010058.R1, Morris Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Rescind Date: February 20, 2018.
2. EQT Production Company, Pad ID: Doe, ABR-201102023.R1, Shippen Township, Cameron County, Pa.; Rescind Date: February 20, 2018.
3. EQT Production Company, Pad ID: Stoney Brook, ABR-201105008.R1, Jay Township, Elk County, Pa.; Rescind Date: February 20, 2018.
4. EQT Production Company, Pad ID: Phoenix P, ABR-201105024.R1, Duncan Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Rescind Date: February 20, 2018.
5. EQT Production Company, Pad ID: Gobbler, ABR-201107039.R1, Huston Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: February 20, 2018.
6. EQT Production Company, Pad ID: Ginger, ABR-201506001, Jay Township, Elk County, Pa.; Rescind Date: February 20, 2018.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on May 10, 2018, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At this public hearing, the Commission will hear testimony on the projects listed in the
The public hearing will convene on May 10, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. The public hearing will end at 5:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of public testimony, whichever is sooner. The deadline for the submission of written comments is May 21, 2018.
The public hearing will be conducted at the Pennsylvania State Capitol, Room 8E-B, East Wing, Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, Pa.
Jason Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436.
Information concerning the applications for these projects is available at the SRBC Water Application and Approval Viewer at
The public hearing will cover a proposed records retention policy, as well as proposed amendments to the Commission's Regulatory Program Fee Schedule and the
1. Project Sponsor and Facility: Brymac, Inc. dba Mountain View Country Club (Pond
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Dillsburg Area Authority, Franklin Township, York County, Pa. Modification to increase groundwater withdrawal by an additional 0.099 mgd (30-day average), for a total groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.200 mgd (30-day average) from Well 3 (Docket No. 20081207).
3. Project Sponsor and Facility: Healthy Properties, Inc. (Sugar Creek), North Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.999 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140602).
4. Project Sponsor and Facility: LDG Innovation, LLC (Tioga River), Lawrenceville Borough, Tioga County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.750 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140604).
5. Project Sponsor and Facility: Lycoming Engines, a Division of Avco Corporation, City of Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 1.440 mgd (30-day average) for groundwater remediation system (Docket No. 19880203).
6. Project Sponsor and Facility: Mountain Energy Services, Inc. (Tunkhannock Creek), Tunkhannock Township, Wyoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 1.498 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140606).
7. Project Sponsor and Facility: Niagara H2O Company (Susquehanna River), Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 1.500 mgd (peak day).
8. Project Sponsor and Facility: Northeast Marcellus Aqua Midstream I, LLC (Susquehanna River), Tunkhannock Township, Wyoming County, Pa. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 5.000 mgd (peak day).
9. Project Sponsor and Facility: Pennsylvania General Energy Company, L.L.C. (Pine Creek), Watson Township, Lycoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.918 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140609).
10. Project Sponsor and Facility: Pro-Environmental, LLC (Martins Creek), Lathrop Township, Susquehanna County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.999 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140610).
11. Project Sponsor and Facility: Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC (Fall Brook), Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.176 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140615).
12. Project Sponsor and Facility: Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC (Unnamed Tributary to North Branch Sugar Creek), Columbia Township, Bradford County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.926 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140616).
13. Project Sponsor: SUEZ Water Pennsylvania Inc. Project Facility: Center Square Operation, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pa. Application for groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.107 mgd (30-day average) from Well 1.
14. Project Sponsor: SUEZ Water Pennsylvania Inc. Project Facility: Center Square Operation, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.379 mgd (30-day average) from Well 2 (Docket No. 19861104).
15. Project Sponsor and Facility: Sugar Hollow Water Services LLC (Bowman Creek), Eaton Township, Wyoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 0.249 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140612).
16. Project Sponsor and Facility: Susquehanna Gas Field Services, LLC, Meshoppen Borough, Wyoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.216 mgd (30-day average) from the Meshoppen Pizza Well (Docket No. 20140613).
17. Project Sponsor and Facility: Susquehanna Gas Field Services, LLC (Susquehanna River), Meshoppen Township, Wyoming County, Pa. Application for renewal of surface water withdrawal of up to 1.650 mgd (peak day) (Docket No. 20140614).
18. Project Sponsor and Facility: Togg Mountain LLC, Town of Fabius, Onondaga County, N.Y. Application for consumptive use of up to 0.485 mgd (peak day).
19. Project Sponsor and Facility: Togg Mountain LLC (West Branch of Tioughnioga Creek), Town of Fabius, Onondaga County, N.Y. Application for surface water withdrawal of up to 2.200 mgd (peak day).
20. Project Sponsor and Facility: Town of Vestal, Broome County, N.Y. Application for renewal of groundwater withdrawal of up to 1.440 mgd (30-day average) from Well 4-4 (Docket No. 19810508).
Interested parties may appear at the hearing to offer comments to the Commission on any project or proposal listed above. The presiding officer reserves the right to limit oral statements in the interest of time and to otherwise control the course of the hearing. Guidelines for the public hearing will be posted on the Commission's website,
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
February 1-28, 2018.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312,
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22 (f) for the time period specified above:
1. S.T.L. Resources, LLC, Pad ID: Sturgis Pad, ABR-201802001, Gallagher Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: February 1, 2018.
2. Chief Oil & Gas, LLC, Pad ID: SGL 12 M NORTH DRILLING PAD, ABR-201802002, Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.5000 mgd; Approval Date: February 9, 2018.
3. JKLM Energy, LLC, Pad ID: Judson Hollow 302, ABR-201802003, Pike Township, Potter County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.2000 mgd; Approval Date: February 9, 2018.
4. Inflection Energy (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Brass Well site, ABR-201802004, Upper Fairfield Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: February 21, 2018.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal from the City of Arlington Airport Director to change certain portions of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, WA. The proposal consists of approximately 52,500 square feet on the west side of the airfield adjacent to 51st Avenue, Northeast.
Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the
Mr. David M. Ryan, Airport Director, City of Arlington, 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA, 98223; or Ms. Cayla D. Morgan, Environmental Protection Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, 98198, (206) 231-4130. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above locations.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), and 47107(h)(2), the FAA is considering a proposal from the Airport Director, City of Arlington, to change a portion of the Arlington Municipal Airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. The proposal consists of approximately 52,000 square feet on the west side of the airport adjacent to 51st Avenue, Northeast.
The property consists of two oddly shaped triangular section of land that are not large enough to support construction of an aircraft hangar or ramp. It is currently an unused parking area. The airport is proposing an Airport Observation Area for aviation educational purposes. The airport will continue to own the property so there will be no proceeds associated with this release from a land use provision. The FAA concurs that the parcels are no longer needed for aeronautical purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible with other airport operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in
Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation; National Park Service, Interior.
List of exempt parks.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA) requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Park Service (NPS) to develop an air tour management plan for units of the national park system where an operator has applied for authority to conduct commercial air tours. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 amended various provisions of NPATMA. One provision exempted national park units with 50 or fewer annual flights from the requirement to prepare an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement and requires FAA and NPS to jointly publish a list of exempt parks. By
Keith Lusk—Mailing address: Federal Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261. Telephone: (310) 725-3808. Email address:
1. NPATMA (Pub. L. 106-181, codified at 49 U.S.C. 40128) requires the FAA and NPS to develop an air tour management plan for units of the national park system where an operator has requested authority to provide commercial air tours. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (2012 Act) amended various provisions of NPATMA.
2. This
a. Exempt national park units that have 50 or fewer commercial air tour operations each year from the requirement to prepare an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement.
b. Authorize NPS to withdraw the exemption if the Director determines that an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement is necessary to protect resources and values or visitor use and enjoyment.
c. Require FAA and NPS to publish a list each year of national parks covered by the exemption.
1. This list is based on the number of commercial air tour operations reported to the FAA and NPS by air tour operators conducting air tours under interim operating authority at national park units in calendar year 2016 for which the total operations was 50 or fewer. Parks on the exempt list are those that have at least one operator who has been granted operating authority to conduct commercial air tours over that park. Exempt parks are as follows:
2. NPS is authorized to withdraw a park from the exempt list if NPS determines that an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement is necessary to protect park resources and values or park visitor use and enjoyment. Under this statutory authority, the NPS Director informed the FAA Administrator in writing on September 15, 2015, that NPS withdrew the exemption for Death Valley National Park and Mount Rainier National Park and on November 2, 2017 that NPS withdrew Canyon de Chelly National Monument. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC; San Juan Island National Historical Park, WA; and Voyageurs National Park, MN were on the 2015 exempt list but are not on the 2016 exempt list because there is no longer any operator(s) who has applied for operating authority to conduct commercial air tours over those parks.
The FAA and NPS will publish a list of exempt parks annually. The list could change from year to year since parks may be added to or removed from the exempt list based on the previous year's number of annual operations. In order to continue to be exempt, a park must have 50 or fewer annual commercial air tour operations in any given calendar year. The list could also change if NPS withdraws an exempted park. NPS is authorized to withdraw a park from the exempt list if NPS determines that an air tour management plan or a voluntary agreement is necessary to protect park resources and values or park visitor use and enjoyment. Pursuant to the 2012 Act, the NPS shall inform the FAA in writing of each determination to withdraw an exemption. At parks that lose exempt status, operators will return to interim operating authority requirements until an air tour management plan or a voluntary agreement has been established.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on April 5, 2018.
Maritime Administration.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information collection is necessary for MARAD to determine whether; the applicant is committed to the redevelopment plan, the plan is in the best interests of the public, and the property will be used in accordance with the terms of the conveyance and applicable statutes and regulations. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. MARAD-2018-0054] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Linden Houston, Office of Deepwater Ports and Offshore Activities, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (202) 366-4839 or E-Mail: mail to:
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0040. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SERENITY is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0040 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0045. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SPELLBOUND is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0045 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0042. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CAPT EASY is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0042 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0051. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ENVOLEE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0051 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0041. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FUNSEEKER is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0041 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0043. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ANNE BONNY is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0043 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0052. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FEARLESS is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0052 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0039. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ABLE ONE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0039 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0053. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel R and R is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0053 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0038. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CHILLIN' is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0038 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 11, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-X0044. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel DESPERADO is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0044 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
DOT invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to reinstate a currently approved information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Send comments on or before June 11, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by [Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0001] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
LeErnest Wells, Program Support Division, Office of Defect Investigation (NEF-110), (202) 366-9717, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W43-481, Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
AGC Glass Company North America (d.b.a. AGC Automotive Americas Co. “AGC”), has determined that certain rear privacy glass manufactured as replacement glass for certain model year (MY) 2013-2017 Jeep Compass motor vehicles does not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
The closing date for comments on the petition is May 11, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt of AGC's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
• A Prime glazing material manufacturer must certify, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30115, each piece of glazing material to which this standard applies is designed as:
• A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, in letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol “DOT” and a manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer.
• NHTSA will assign a code mark to a manufacturer after the manufacturer submits a written request to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The request must include the company name, address, and a statement from the manufacturer certifying its status as a prime glazing manufacturer as defined in paragraph S4.
• A manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which this standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, must:
AGC described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, AGC submitted the following reasoning:
1.
There is nothing that would affect or impact vehicle safety resulting from this erroneous “AS2” mark being included in the logo and this error should be classified as inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
2.
AGC concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
AGC's complete petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject privacy glass parts that AGC no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the agencies) 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. On November 8, 2017, the agencies, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), requested public comment for 60 days on a proposal to revise the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic and Foreign Offices (FFIEC 031), the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic Offices Only (FFIEC 041), and the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic Offices Only and Total Assets Less than $1 Billion (FFIEC 051) (November 2017 notice), which are currently approved collections of information. The Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income are commonly referred to as Call Reports. The proposed revisions to the FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051 Call Reports would result in an overall reduction in burden. These reporting revisions consist of the deletion or consolidation of a large number of items and the addition of a new or increases in certain existing reporting thresholds.
The comment period for the November 2017 notice ended on January 8, 2018. As described in the
In addition, the agencies are giving notice that they are sending the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 11, 2018.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by any of the following methods:
•
• For assistance in navigating
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed revisions to the Call Report discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency staff whose names appear below. In addition, copies of the Call Report forms can be obtained at the FFIEC's website (
The agencies propose revisions to data items reported on the FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051 Call Reports.
The proposed burden-reducing revisions to the Call Reports are the result of an ongoing effort by the agencies to reduce the burden associated with their preparation and filing and, as detailed in Appendices B, C, and D, would achieve burden reductions by removing or consolidating numerous items, and by adding a new or raising certain existing reporting thresholds.
The estimated average burden hours for each agency collectively reflect the estimates for the FFIEC 031, the FFIEC 041, and the FFIEC 051 reports. When the estimates are calculated by type of report across the agencies, the estimated average burden hours per quarter are 122.38 (FFIEC 031), 55.35 (FFIEC 041), and 37.94 (FFIEC 051). The burden hours for the currently approved reports are 123.06 (FFIEC 031), 57.71 (FFIEC 041), and 39.38 (FFIEC 051),
These information collections are mandatory pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 161 (for national banks), 12 U.S.C. 324 (for state member banks), 12 U.S.C. 1817 (for insured state nonmember commercial and savings banks), and 12 U.S.C. 1464 (for federal and state savings associations). At present, except for selected data items and text, these information collections are not given confidential treatment.
Institutions submit Call Report data to the agencies each quarter for the agencies' use in monitoring the condition, performance, and risk profile of individual institutions and the industry as a whole. Call Report data serve a regulatory or public policy purpose by assisting the agencies in fulfilling their shared missions of ensuring the safety and soundness of financial institutions and the financial system and the protection of consumer financial rights, as well as agency-specific missions affecting federal and state-chartered institutions, such as conducting monetary policy, ensuring financial stability, and administering federal deposit insurance. Call Reports are the source of the most current statistical data available for identifying areas of focus for on-site and off-site examinations. Among other uses, the agencies use Call Report data in evaluating institutions' corporate applications, including, in particular, interstate merger and acquisition applications for which the agencies are required by law to determine whether the resulting institution would control
On November 8, 2017, the agencies requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to revise the existing Call Report requirements.
The comment period for the November 2017 notice ended on January 8, 2018. General comments on the notice are summarized in Section II. In Section III, the agencies provide more details on the comments received. Section IV discusses the timing for implementing the proposed revisions to the Call Report.
The agencies collectively received comments on the proposal from five entities, including banking organizations and a trade association. General comments and recommendations on the proposal and the overall burden-reduction initiative are included in this section. Comments with specific recommendations to revise the Call Reports are addressed in Section III.
Commenters expressed varying opinions on the November 2017 notice and the agencies' Call Report burden-reduction initiatives to date. Two commenters supported the effort put forth by the agencies. One commenter “strongly support[s] the FFIEC's ongoing work to reform the Call Report, an ongoing project that is yielding important value for supervision as well as for successful bank management.” The other commenter “commends” the agencies' initiative and encourages continued efforts to ease the burden on small community banks.
On the other hand, one commenter asserted that the proposed revisions to the Call Reports would not have any impact on the banking organization's reporting.
The agencies recognize that not all institutions would see an immediate and large reduction in burden from the proposed revisions in the November 2017 notice. However, consolidating existing data items into fewer data items and adding or increasing reporting thresholds would generally result in institutions spending less time completing the Call Report since there would be fewer items to review prior to each quarterly submission. Also, an institution would have fewer instructions to review to determine whether it has reportable (nonzero) amounts. To the extent that an institution currently tracks granular data items for internal reporting purposes that are proposed to be consolidated in the Call Report, there may be limited burden relief from consolidating the items. However, institutions that currently track data at an aggregate level for internal reporting purposes and then must allocate that amount to the existing subcategories in the Call Report every quarter would see additional burden relief. Accordingly, the agencies believe the changes proposed in the November 2017 notice offer meaningful Call Report burden relief to many institutions.
One commenter offered a number of recommendations to improve the revision and preparation of the Call Report. Regarding the revision process, the commenter recommended that the agencies conduct an internal user survey covering every item in the Call Report at least once every two years, conduct a review for potentially obsolete items at least annually, and continue to improve the clarity and usability of Call Report instructions. The agencies currently conduct the user survey as the foundation for a review of all Call Report data items they are required to conduct every five years.
With respect to the clarity and usability of the Call Report instructions, the agencies agree with the commenter that making the instructions clearer and providing examples of how to calculate amounts that may be more complex to report contribute to burden relief. The agencies welcome suggestions from bankers, industry associations, and others for specific improvements to and clarifications of the existing instructions, including where examples would be helpful. Input from these stakeholders and from agency examination staff has led to instructional improvements in the past and the agencies will continue to address specific suggestions for instructional improvements. The commenter also cited the benefits of hyperlinks to the rule or guidance on which particular instructions are based. The agencies have added hyperlinks to certain cited documents in the two sets of Call Report instructions.
The commenter also recommended that the agencies only propose revisions to the Call Report once a year, make those changes effective starting in the quarter ending March 31, and finalize those changes by the prior September 30 to allow banks sufficient lead time to implement the revisions. Prior to the recent revisions to streamline the Call Report, the agencies typically followed a schedule of making revisions only once per year, with the changes generally becoming effective for the
The same commenter recommended that the FFIEC establish an industry advisory committee to develop advice and guidance on the Call Report, establish a regular process to address technical questions and changes to the Call Report, and provide training related to preparing the Call Report. The agencies plan to continue to offer outreach in connection with significant revisions to the Call Report, as they did with the adoption of the revised Schedule RC-R, Regulatory Capital, and the implementation of the FFIEC 051. The agencies also receive and respond to a number of reporting questions from individual institutions each quarter. Issues that could affect multiple institutions are often addressed through the Call Report Supplemental Instructions published quarterly or updates to the Call Report instruction books published as needed. Consistent with the PRA, the agencies also offer an opportunity for members of the banking industry to comment on proposed changes to the Call Report or to make any additional suggestions for improving, streamlining, or clarifying instructions to the Call Report.
The commenter also recommended that the agencies align the proposed revisions to the Call Report with revisions to the Board's FR Y-9C report for holding companies
Furthermore, the agencies will consider reviewing existing instructions to other regulatory reports to identify opportunities to enhance uniformity in reporting guidance. In this regard, the agencies have already proposed revisions to the FFIEC 002 report that would align with corresponding revisions that have been implemented or proposed for the Call Report.
The commenter further recommended that the agencies increase the asset-size threshold for filing the FFIEC 051 Call Report from the current $1 billion to at least $10 billion, indexed for inflation. Raising the threshold to $10 billion or higher at this time could result in a significant loss of data necessary for supervisory or other purposes from institutions with assets of $1 billion or more. Therefore, the agencies are not adopting this recommendation at this time, but will continue to evaluate the appropriate scope and criteria for expanding the number of institutions eligible to file the FFIEC 051.
One commenter requested the agencies eliminate certain deposit items in Schedule RC-E by combining items for deposits with balances less than $100,000 and those with balances of $100,000 through $250,000 into a single item. Separate reporting of time deposits with balances less than $100,000 in Schedule RC-E, including certain Memorandum items to adjust that amount, is tied to the Board's measurement of the money supply.
One commenter recommended that the agencies add a new loan item to Schedule RC-C, Part I, to enable institutions to report non-speculative 1-4 family residential construction loans to consumers separately from other 1-4 family residential construction loans.
After considering these specific comments, as well as the comments received on the overall proposal and the burden-reduction initiative that were discussed in Section II above, the
Subject to OMB approval, the effective date for the implementation of the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051 would be June 30, 2018. When implementing the burden-reducing Call Report revisions as of the June 30, 2018, report date, institutions may provide reasonable estimates for any new or revised Call Report data item initially required to be reported as of that date for which the requested information is not readily available. The specific wording of the captions for the new or revised Call Report data items discussed in this proposal and the numbering of these data items is subject to change.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comment is specifically invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed revisions to the collections of information that are the subject of this notice are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(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; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Schedule RI-A collects detailed information about specified categories of changes in an institution's equity capital during the calendar year to date. In general, these categories are aligned with categories typically reported on a basic statement of changes in equity in a set of financial statements prepared under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
The FFIEC member entities' examiners use the Schedule RI-A information in their off-site reviews to identify and understand the sources of any significant changes in an institution's capital accounts. Information on dividends declared as a percentage of net income reveals the extent to which capital is being augmented through earnings retention, which is the principal source of capital for most institutions. The banking agencies may be aware of some capital transactions reported in Schedule RI-A due to licensing requirements. However, for many other transactions directly affecting capital such as dividends declared and transactions with a parent holding company, Schedule RI-A may be the only source of information on changes in capital aside from an on-site examination. Even for capital transactions that require prior agency approval, the information reported in Schedule RI-A serves as confirmation that the institution successfully completed the transaction (such as issuing new stock or redeeming existing preferred stock). The agencies also use the information on this schedule as a starting point for reviewing compliance with statutory or regulatory restrictions on dividends or holding company transactions.
The FDIC uses data items from Schedule RI-A in its estimates of losses from failures of insured depository institutions, which affects the FDIC's loss reserve and the resulting level of the balance in the Deposit Insurance Fund.
Schedule RI-C provides information on the components of the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) by loan category disaggregated on the basis of a reporting institution's impairment measurement method and the related recorded investment in loans (and, as applicable, leases) held for investment for institutions with $1 billion or more in total assets. The information required to be reported in Schedule RI-C is consistent with disclosures required under existing U.S. GAAP in Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) paragraphs 310-10-50-11B(g) and (h).
By providing this level of detail on an individual institution's overall ALLL, which supports the identification of changes in its components over time, examiners can better perform off-site monitoring of activity within the ALLL in periods between examinations and when planning for examinations. Thus, the Schedule RI-C information enables examiners and agency analysts to determine whether the institution is releasing loan loss allowances in some loan categories and building allowances in others. Furthermore, changes from period to period in the volume of individually evaluated loans that have been determined to be impaired in each loan category, and the allowance allocations to these impaired loans, provide examiners and analysts with an indicator of trends in the institution's credit quality. This understanding is critical to the agencies since the ALLL, and the direction of changes in its composition, is one of the key factors in determining an institution's financial condition.
The detailed ALLL information collected in Schedule RI-C allows the agencies to more finely focus efforts related to the analysis of the ALLL and credit risk management. By reviewing the data collected in Schedule RI-C on allowance allocations by loan category in conjunction with the past due and nonaccrual data reported by loan category (in Schedule RC-N) that are used in a general assessment of an institution's credit risk exposures, the agencies can better evaluate whether the overall level of its ALLL, and its allocations by loan category, appear appropriate or whether supervisory follow-up is warranted. Together, the ALLL information and past due and nonaccrual data factor into the assessment of the Asset Quality component of the CAMELS rating.
Schedule RI-C also assists the agencies in understanding industry trends related to the build-up or release of allowances for specific loan categories. The information supports comparisons of ALLL levels by loan category, including the identification of differences in ALLL allocations by institution size. Understanding how institutions' ALLL practices and allocations differ over time for particular loan categories as economic conditions change provides insight that can be used to more finely tune supervisory procedures and policies.
Schedule RC-A provides data on currency and coin, cash items, balances due from U.S. and foreign depository institutions, and balances due from Federal Reserve Banks.
For monetary policy purposes, information from Schedule RC-A is needed for analysis of the relationship between institutions' cash assets and the federal funds market, and in the construction of the monetary aggregates and weekly estimates of cash assets. The Board, in conducting monetary policy, monitors shifts between cash accounts and federal funds as a measure of the effectiveness of policy initiatives. For example, differences in interest rates paid on balances due from Federal Reserve Banks compared to those available in the federal funds market cause shifts in the relative volumes of funds institutions hold in their Federal Reserve Bank accounts and federal funds sold. This can be seen in the significant shrinkage in the federal funds market over the past ten years that has been offset by increases in cash assets held. As monetary policy normalizes and rates in the federal funds market increase, data in Schedule RC-A will allow the Board to analyze how cash assets would change as the federal funds market responds to the movement in rates.
Schedule RC-A data also serve as inputs into the construction of the monetary aggregates and in deriving estimates of cash assets on a weekly frequency. Cash items reported in item 1 are utilized as netting components in constructing the monetary aggregates. Items for cash and balances due from depository institutions are utilized to benchmark comparable weekly data collected by the Board from a sample of both small and large depository institutions. These weekly estimates provide timely input for more effective monitoring of institutions' cash asset positions.
Schedule RC-A provides information about the most liquid balance sheet accounts available to satisfy unexpected cash outflows. Thus, information reported on balances due from depository institutions, including those representing correspondent banking balances, are a key element in the agencies' analysis of an institution's management of liquidity risk. Such balances serve to pay the institution's daily cash letters and must be maintained at sufficient levels to cover these obligations in the normal course of business. At the same time, information from Schedule RC-A is particularly important for the agencies' evaluations of an institution's ability to effectively respond to liquidity stress. Although other balance sheet assets, such as debt securities, are secondary sources of liquidity under normal operating conditions, examiners consider the availability of on-balance sheet cash and due from balances under a highly stressed operating environment. Given the volatility of liability funding sources, agency supervisory staff assess the demands of a potential liquidity crisis in comparison to the availability of funds from due from balances. Because the amount of liquid assets that an institution should maintain is a function of the stability of its funding structure and the risk characteristics of its balance sheet and off-balance sheet activities, examiners monitor the level of cash and due from balances, and changes therein from period to period, by using data from Schedule RC-A as part of their off-site analyses of liquidity risk. The results of these analyses may influence the supervisory strategy for an institution and is an input into examination planning activities necessary for scoping and staffing the evaluation of liquidity and funds management during examinations.
The separate breakout of balances due from banks in foreign countries and foreign central banks in Schedule RC-A also aids the agencies in assessing liquidity risk arising from additional or distinct banking laws and regulations in foreign countries and in evaluating the currency risk and country risk associated with these balances.
Schedule RC-F collects a breakdown of assets not reported in other balance sheet asset categories, such as deferred tax assets, equity securities without readily determinable fair values, and life insurance assets. This information is used in off-site monitoring and for pre-examination planning. A trend of rapid growth in or a significant change in the reported amount of an individual category of other assets that is identified through off-site monitoring may represent an area of potential concern or heightened risk and require further review and assessment, either upon identification or at the next examination.
For example, a significant increase in the level of accrued interest receivable may be indicative of deterioration in the repayment capacity of an institution's borrowers or a relaxation of management's loan collection policies and practices, which would signal an increase in overall credit risk. Growth in the amount of net deferred tax assets, particularly at an institution with cumulative losses in recent years, raises questions about the realizability of these assets and whether the need for a valuation allowance has been properly assessed. The importance of ensuring the appropriateness of the reported amount of these assets is also tied to the deductions and limits that apply to deferred tax assets under the agencies' regulatory capital rules. Examiners use information on the volume of interest-only strips receivable in their pre-examination scoping of an institution's interest rate risk to determine the extent of this risk in preparation for an on-site assessment. Because bank-owned life insurance exposes an institution to liquidity, operational, credit, interest rate, and other risks, examiners need to identify significant holdings of life insurance assets and growth in such holdings. In these circumstances, examiners evaluate management's adherence to prudent concentration limits for life insurance assets and management's performance of comprehensive assessments of the risks of these assets, either on an off-site basis or during examinations.
Information on those individual components of all other assets that exceed the Schedule RC-F disclosure threshold helps examiners evaluate the significance of these items to the overall composition of the balance sheet and identify risk exposures associated with these assets. For example, when examiners find the reported amount of repossessed assets at an institution to be increasing, these data, taken together with data on the volume of past due and nonaccrual loans reported in Schedule RC-N, may signal credit deterioration and the need for examiner follow-up with management. Data on repossessed assets also are used for the scoping of targeted consumer compliance examinations, particularly with respect to auto loan origination and servicing.
Data on accrued interest receivable also are used in the FDIC's model that estimates losses arising from the failure of problem institutions, which affects the measurement of the balance of the Deposit Insurance Fund.
Schedule RC-G collects a breakdown of liabilities not reported in other balance sheet liability categories, such as interest accrued and unpaid on deposits, net deferred tax liabilities, and the allowance for credit losses on off-balance sheet exposures. As with the other assets data collected in Schedule RC-F, information reported in Schedule RC-G is used in off-site monitoring and for pre-examination planning. A trend of rapid growth in or a significant change in the reported amount of an individual category of other liabilities that is identified through off-site monitoring may represent an area of potential concern or heightened risk and require further review and assessment, either upon identification or at the next examination.
For example, a significant increase or decrease in the interest accrued and unpaid on deposits would warrant examiner follow-up to determine the cause for this change from previous levels because it could indicate a change in an institution's funding strategy with a consequential effect on its future earnings and its interest rate risk exposure. Examiner assessments of material increases in the allowance for off-balance sheet credit exposures are performed to determine whether this reflects credit quality deterioration on the part of existing customers to whom credit has been extended, a loosening of underwriting practices for granting or renewing lines of credit, or other factors, especially at banks with significant credit card operations or other unfunded commitments.
Information on those individual components of all other liabilities that exceed the Schedule RC-G disclosure threshold helps examiners evaluate the significance of these items to the overall composition of the balance sheet and identify risk exposures associated with these liabilities. For example, an increase in the amount of derivatives with negative fair values, considering changes in the notional amounts of derivatives reported in Schedule RC-L (on the FFIEC 031 or FFIEC 041) or Schedule SU (on the FFIEC 051), would lead to examiner review of an institution's hedging activities and their effectiveness in offsetting identified hedged risks or its strategy for entering into derivatives transactions for purposes other than hedging because of the resulting negative impact on earnings. Because deferred compensation liabilities create funding obligations, growth in the amount of
Data on interest accrued and unpaid on deposits also are used in the FDIC's model that estimates losses arising from the failure of problem institutions, which affects the measurement of the Deposit Insurance Fund.
Schedule RC-H provides data on selected balance sheet items held in domestic offices only, and complements domestic office information collected in Schedule RC-C, Part I (Loans and Leases), Column B, and in Schedule RC-A (Cash and Balances Due from Depository Institutions), Column B. This domestic office level information is utilized for monetary policy and supervisory risk assessment purposes.
In general, Board policymakers set U.S. monetary policy to influence economic activity and financial market conditions in the United States. The domestic office components of the balance sheet items in Schedule RC-H and elsewhere in the Call Report are used in this context to assess credit availability, banks' funding patterns, liquidity, and investment strategies in the United States. For example, if the level of an institution's consolidated holdings of U.S. Treasury securities were increasing, but upon further review a significant portion of the growth reflected a rise in the amount of the institution's securities that are held in its foreign offices, such growth would not constitute direct support of either increased liquidity or a change in investment strategy at the institution's domestic offices. Moreover, in that case, such growth would not constitute an increase in the Board's U.S. bank credit aggregate, which is based on domestic-office-only holdings of institutions' securities and loans. Without the domestic-offices-only component of U.S. Treasury securities, the interpretation of increases in such securities holdings would be unnecessarily complicated; it would otherwise be unclear to policymakers, analysts, and others whether such growth had in fact reflected stimulation of the U.S. economy in the form of U.S. bank credit.
For institutions with foreign and domestic operations, the division of assets and funding between foreign and domestic components is a key element of an institution's risk profile. For example, the levels of funding and assets at such an institution that are subject to potentially more restrictive foreign laws and regulations and to currency risk and other transactional risks define a major portion of the institution's risk profile. In addition, data on the volume of assets and liabilities by balance sheet category in domestic versus foreign offices is essential for planning and staffing examinations of institutions with foreign offices.
Schedule RC-I requires the reporting, on a fully consolidated basis, of the total assets and liabilities of all International Banking Facilities (IBFs) established by the reporting institution,
For institutions that meet an activity-based reporting threshold associated with their mortgage banking activities in domestic offices, Schedule RC-P provides data on their originations, purchases, and sales of closed-end and open-end 1-4 family residential mortgages during the quarter. Institutions providing data in Schedule RC-P also report the amount of closed-end and open-end 1-4 family residential mortgage loans held for sale or trading at quarter-end as well as the noninterest income for the quarter from the sale, securitization, and servicing of these mortgage loans. For open-end mortgage loans, institutions report the total commitment under the line of credit. These data are collected to enhance the agencies' ability to monitor the nature and extent of institutions' involvement with 1-4 family residential mortgage loans as originators, sellers, and servicers of such loans.
Since mortgage banking accounts for a large source of income at many institutions, concentrations of activities in this area pose several types of risks. These risks include operational, credit, interest rate, and liquidity risks, evaluations of which are critical in assigning appropriate CAMELS ratings for an institution. Therefore, the agencies monitor and analyze the Schedule RC-P data on institutions' mortgage banking activities to support their assessments of various risk components of CAMELS ratings. For example, 1-4 family residential mortgage banking activities may include an institution's obligation to repurchase mortgage loans that it has sold or otherwise indemnify the loan purchaser against loss due to borrower defaults, loan defects, other breaches of representations and warranties, or other reasons, thereby exposing the institution to additional risk. To monitor this exposure, Schedule RC-P collects data on 1-4 family residential mortgage loan repurchases and indemnifications during the quarter as well as representation and warranty reserves for such loans that have been sold. If off-site analysis of the reported data on repurchases and indemnifications reveals substantial increases in recent periods, this would be a red flag for supervisory questions about the credit and operational risks arising from the institution's mortgage loan originations and purchases as well as its ability to fund a higher level of loan repurchases going forward than it may be accustomed to repurchase. Examiner review of the appropriateness of the level of representation and warranty reserves and the institution's methodology for estimating the amount of these reserves also would be warranted.
In addition, the data reported in Schedule RC-P are used in the ongoing monitoring of the current volume, growth, and profitability of institutions' 1-4 family residential mortgage banking activities. In this regard, significant growth in these activities over a short period of time, particularly in relation to the size of an institution, raises supervisory concerns as to whether the institution has implemented appropriate risk management processes, controls, and governance over its mortgage banking business. The extent of the increased level of activity will determine the nature and timing of the supervisory follow-up. More generally, for examiners, the off-site monitoring of the Schedule RC-S data and related metrics and trends provides key information for examination scoping and helps determine the allocation of mortgage-banking specialists' time during on-site examinations.
A substantial volume of loans and other assets held for sale in a market where the assets may not be able to be readily sold can cause significant liquidity strain because of the institution's need for funding to carry these assets for a greater length of time than had been anticipated. Thus, the agencies use data from Schedule RC-P when assessing an institution's liquidity position by monitoring and analyzing the extent of mortgages held for sale or trading. If there is significant growth in the amount of such mortgage holdings, particularly when the Schedule RC-P data reveal larger amounts of originations and purchases compared to sales, this would be an indicator that the acquired loans are not selling and a basis for supervisory follow-up.
From a consumer compliance perspective, the agencies use Schedule RC-P data to monitor mortgage-related metrics for assessing potential risks to consumers, and for the scheduling and scoping of examinations. Additionally, the agencies rely on Schedule RC-P data for assessing an institution's product lines for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act and other fair lending regulations, particularly if the institution engages in wholesale originations of mortgage loans.
FASB ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurement, provides guidance on how to measure fair value and establishes a three-level hierarchy for measuring fair value. This hierarchy prioritizes inputs used to measure fair value based on observability, giving the highest priority to quoted prices in active
Under ASC Subtopic 825-10, Financial Instruments—Overall, ASC Subtopic 815-15, Derivatives and Hedging—Embedded Derivatives, and ASC Subtopic 860-50, Transfers and Servicing—Servicing Assets and Liabilities, an institution may elect to report certain assets and liabilities at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in earnings. This election is generally referred to as the fair value option. Under U.S. GAAP, certain other assets and liabilities are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis.
Institutions that have elected to apply the fair value option or have reported $10 million or more in total trading assets in any of the four preceding calendar quarters must report in Schedule RC-Q the amount of assets and liabilities, by major categories, that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis in the financial statements, along with separate disclosure of the amount of such assets and liabilities whose fair values were estimated under each of the three levels of the FASB's fair value hierarchy.
Agency staff use the information on assets reported at fair value in Schedule RC-Q to calibrate and estimate the impact of regulatory capital policy, as well as evaluate contemplated capital policy changes. The agencies also use the Schedule RC-Q data (particularly the volume of fair value option assets and liabilities in relation to total assets and total capital, whether the volume has significantly increased, and whether the option has begun to be applied to new categories of assets or liabilities) to assist with planning the proper scoping and staffing of risk management safety and soundness examinations given the critical importance of robust risk management and control processes around fair value measurement. For available-for-sale securities and fair value option loans, agency staff can also compare the fair values reported in Schedule RC-Q with the amortized cost and unpaid principal balance, respectively, reported for these assets in the Call Report to understand the extent and direction of these measurement differences and their potential effect on regulatory capital should a substantial portion of these assets need to be sold. The agencies also use this information to evaluate the extent of Level 3 fair value measurements of certain assets and liabilities because of the extensive use of unobservable inputs to estimate these fair values, as well as to monitor trading asset valuations and shifts in the fair value hierarchy valuation levels among trading assets over time and across capital markets.
Information in Schedule RC-Q is also used by agency examination staff to analyze capital, asset quality, earnings, and liquidity components of CAMELS. The agencies also use data reported in Schedule RC-Q in credit risk management tools. Obtaining these data on a quarterly basis allows for closer monitoring of credit risk changes affecting assets measured at fair value. The data are also used to monitor bank performance, emerging trends, and certain mortgage servicing assets.
Schedule RC-S collects data on servicing, securitization, and asset sale activities. The majority of these data represents off-balance sheet activities. The agencies use the data provided in this schedule primarily for risk identification and examination scoping purposes.
Exposures reported in Schedule RC-S can affect an institution's liquidity outlook. For example, if an institution has a commitment to provide liquidity to its own or other institutions' securitization structures or has provided credit enhancements in the form of recourse or standby letters of credit for assets it has sold or securitized, the agencies need to consider such funding commitments to properly monitor and assess the full scope of an institution's liquidity position. This schedule also captures past due amounts for loans the reporting institution has sold and securitized on which it has retained servicing or has provided recourse or other credit enhancements. This past due information, and trends in the past due amounts, are critical to the agencies' ability to evaluate the credit quality of the underlying assets in securitization structures on an off-site basis and timely identify any credit quality deterioration for supervisory follow-up, including, if applicable, the effect of increased servicing costs on current and forecasted earnings. Defaulting assets underlying securitization structures played a major role during the recent financial crisis, so it is imperative the agencies have the information necessary to continuously monitor the performance of these assets.
The agencies also use Schedule RC-S data to analyze whether an institution has adequate capital to cover losses arising from liquidity commitments or recourse obligations if the underlying assets in securitizations begin to default, especially in the event of an economic downturn. In addition, on an industry-wide basis, changes in the level of activity reported in the various items of this schedule enables the agencies to identify emerging trends within the securitization sector, which supports the development, as needed, of supervisory policies and related guidance for institutions and examiners.
Schedule RC-S is also used by the agencies to prepare for on-site examinations. Specifically, the level of activity reported in Schedule RC-S helps the agencies make examination resource decisions, such as whether capital markets or consumer compliance specialists are needed on-site. (Consumer compliance regulations apply to loans an institution continues to service after sale or securitization.) For example, in the event there are increasing amounts of past due loans that an institution has sold and securitized, additional resources can be allocated to examining the institution's lending policies and practices and internal controls.
Schedule RC-T collects data on fiduciary assets and accounts, income generated from those accounts and other fiduciary services, and related fiduciary activities. The amount of data reported in Schedule RC-T and the frequency of reporting varies depending on an institution's total fiduciary assets and its fiduciary income. The most detail, including income information, is provided quarterly by institutions that have more than $250 million in fiduciary assets or meet a fiduciary income test; other trust institutions report less information in Schedule RC-T annually as of December 31.
Trust services are an integral part of the banking business for more than 20 percent of all institutions. The granularity of the data in Schedule RC-T, especially for the types of managed assets held in fiduciary accounts, aids the agencies in determining the complexity of an institution's fiduciary services risk profile. Furthermore, the agencies use Schedule RC-T data to monitor changes in the volume and character of discretionary trust activity and the volume of nondiscretionary trust activity at a trust institution, which facilitates their assessment of the nature and risks of the institution's fiduciary activities. The institution's risk profile in these areas is considered during pre-examination planning to determine the appropriate scoping and staffing for trust examinations.
The Schedule RC-T data also are used when examiners consider the ratings to be assigned to trust institutions under the Uniform Interagency Trust Rating System (UITRS). The UITRS considers certain managerial, operational, financial, and compliance factors that are common to all institutions with fiduciary activities. Under this system, the supervisory agencies endeavor to ensure that all institutions with fiduciary activities are evaluated in a comprehensive and uniform manner, and that supervisory attention is appropriately focused on those institutions exhibiting weaknesses in their fiduciary operations.
Schedule RC-T provides a breakdown of the amount and number of managed and non-managed accounts by the types of different trust accounts. Personal trusts, employee benefit trusts, and corporate trusts are reported separately because of their substantive differences in nature and risk. Having a detailed breakdown between managed and non-managed accounts is critical because managed accounts have greater levels of investment, legal, reputational, and compliance risks compared to non-managed accounts, and require more supervisory oversight. This account information supports examination scoping and staffing because the evaluation of different types of trust accounts requires differences in expertise.
Data reported by larger trust institutions on fiduciary and related services income and on fiduciary settlements, surcharges, and other losses provide information on the overall profitability of the institution's fiduciary activities and supports the assessment of the Earnings component of the UITRS rating. These assessments consider such factors as the profitability of fiduciary activities in relation to the size and scope of the institution's trust product lines and its overall trust business. In addition, fiduciary
Data in the Schedule RC-T Memorandum items include the market values of managed assets held in fiduciary accounts by type of account and asset class and the number of collective investment funds and common trust funds and the market value of fund assets by type of fund. The exercise of investment discretion adds a significant element of risk to the administration of managed fiduciary accounts. The breakdowns by asset class and type of fund enable the agencies to monitor trends, both on a trust industry-wide basis and an individual trust institution basis, in how institutions with investment discretion are investing the assets of managed accounts and investment funds. The market value breakdowns of managed assets by asset class provide an indicator of complexity by separating more complex and hard-to-value assets that carry higher levels of risk from those assets that pose less risk. These data also contribute to effective examination scoping and staffing so that trust examiners can be assigned, and their time allocated, to examining those more complex and higher risk activities in which they have expertise. For example, the separately reported managed asset classes of real estate mortgages and real estate are distinctly different asset classes with different risk and return profiles, cash flows, and liquidity characteristics. Thus, concentrations in either of these asset classes may inform the supervisory strategy for managed fiduciary accounts, including the level of specialized expertise that may be required when there are concentrations in these asset classes.
Trust institutions also report the number of corporate and municipal debt issues for which the institution serves as trustee that are in substantive default and the outstanding principal amount of these debt issues. A substantive default occurs when the issuer fails to make a required payment of interest or principal, defaults on a required payment into a sinking fund, or is declared bankrupt or insolvent. The occurrence of a substantive default significantly raises the risk profile for the institution serving as an indenture trustee of a defaulted issue and can result in the incurrence of significant expenses and the distraction of managerial time and attention from other areas of trust administration. Thus, by monitoring the corporate trust data reported in Schedule RC-T between examinations, the agencies are able to identify changes in the risk profile of institutions acting as indenture trustees for timely supervisory follow-up and appropriate examination scoping and staffing.
The existence of fiduciary activities reported in Schedule RC-T may result in scoping certain areas of review into a consumer compliance examination, such as privacy and incentive-based cross-selling. The schedule also contains essential information for statistical and analytical purposes, including calculating the OCC assessments for independent trust banks.
Schedule RC-V collects information on an institution's consolidated variable interest entities (VIEs) as defined by FASB ASC Topic 810, Consolidation. The data are used in determining the extent to which an institution's VIEs have been created as securitization vehicles to pool and repackage mortgages, other assets, or other credit exposures into securities that have been or can be transferred to investors or for other purposes. Examiners and reviewers can quantify the level of cash and noninterest-bearing balances, securities, loans, and other assets as well as liabilities tied to VIEs that are reflected in the amounts reported in the corresponding asset and liability categories on the parent institution's consolidated balance sheet. While securitization activities present many risks, the data on VIEs are particularly useful for monitoring and examining credit risk or the risk to earnings performance from the VIEs' activities. Depending on the volume of an institution's VIEs, VIE assets that can be used only to settle obligations of the consolidated VIEs can also impact off-site assessments of the parent institution's liquidity position given the restrictions on the use of the VIEs' assets for borrowing purposes. Thus, the analysis of amounts reported in Schedule RC-V assists with planning the proper scoping and staffing of examinations of institutions with activities conducted through VIEs.
Schedule RC-A, Cash and Balances Due from Depository Institutions, removed.
Schedule RC-T: Increase the threshold for the exemption from reporting Schedule RC-T items 14 through 26, from institutions with fiduciary assets of $100 million or less to institutions with fiduciary assets of $250 million or less (that do not meet the fiduciary income test for quarterly reporting).
To be completed by banks with collective investment funds and common trust funds with a total market value of $1 billion or more as of the preceding December 31.
Schedule RC-P is to be completed by institutions where any of the following residential mortgage banking activities exceeds $10 million for two consecutive quarters:
• 1-4 family residential mortgage loan originations and purchases for resale from all sources during a calendar quarter; or
• 1-4 family residential mortgage loan sales during a calendar quarter; or
• 1-4 family residential mortgage loans held for sale or trading at calendar quarter-end.
Schedule RC-Q is to be completed by banks that: (1) Have elected to report financial instruments or servicing assets and liabilities at fair value under a fair value option with changes in fair value recognized in earnings, or (2) are required to complete Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities.
Schedule RC-T: Increase the threshold for the exemption from reporting Schedule RC-T, data items 14 through 26, from institutions with fiduciary assets of $100 million or less to institutions with fiduciary assets of $250 million or less (that do not meet the fiduciary income test for quarterly reporting).
To be completed by banks with collective investment funds and common trust funds with a total market value of $1 billion or more as of the preceding December 31.
To be completed by banks with $10 billion or more in total assets.
Schedule RC-P is to be completed by institutions where any of the following residential mortgage banking activities (in domestic offices) exceeds $10 million for two consecutive quarters:
• 1-4 family residential mortgage loan originations and purchases for resale from all sources during a calendar quarter; or
• 1-4 family residential mortgage loan sales during a calendar quarter; or
• 1-4 family residential mortgage loans held for sale or trading at calendar quarter-end.
Schedule RC-Q is to be completed by banks that: (1) Have elected to report financial instruments or servicing assets and liabilities at fair value under a fair value option with changes in fair value recognized in earnings, or (2) are required to complete Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities.
Schedule RC-T: Increase the threshold for the exemption from reporting Schedule RC-T, data items 14 through 26, from institutions with fiduciary assets of $100 million or less to institutions with fiduciary assets of $250 million or less (that do not meet the fiduciary income test for quarterly reporting).
To be completed by banks with collective investment funds and common trust funds with a total market value of $1 billion or more as of the preceding December 31.
To be completed by banks with $10 billion or more in total assets.
To be completed by banks with $100 billion or more in total assets.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On April 6, 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. PEREZ ALVEAR, Jesus (a.k.a. “Chucho Perez”), Guerrero, Mexico; DOB 12 Nov 1984; POB Distrito Federal, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; R.F.C. PEAJ-841112-UD1 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. PEAJ841112HDFRLS06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION; Linked To: LOS CUINIS; Linked To: GALLISTICA DIAMANTE). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(2) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”), 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(2), for materially assisting in, or providing financial support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of the CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION and LOS CUINIS; designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, the CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION and LOS CUINIS.
2. LEONE MARTINEZ, Miguel Jose (a.k.a. LEONE, Miguel), Severo Diaz 38, Col. Ladron de Guevara, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44600, Mexico; DOB 16 May 1980; citizen Italy; alt. citizen Venezuela; website
1. GALLISTICA DIAMANTE (a.k.a. GALLISTICA DIAMANTE S.A. DE C.V.; a.k.a. TICKET PREMIER), Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico; Quinta Los Pirules Num. Ext. 182, Quinta Los Naranjos, Leon, Guanajuato 37210, Mexico; website
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a modified matching program.
This re-established computer matching agreement (CMA) sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will disclose return
Comments on this matching notice must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Nancy C. Williams, Pension Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service (21P), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-8394.
CMA between VA and IRS DIFSLA, expires June 30, 2018. VBA has a legal obligation to reduce the amount of pension and of parents' dependency and indemnity compensation by the amount of annual income received by the VBA beneficiary. VA will use this information to verify the income information submitted by beneficiaries in VA's needs-based benefit programs and adjust VA benefit payments as prescribed by law. By comparing the information received through the matching program between VBA and IRS, VBA will be able to timely and accurately adjust benefit amounts. The match information will help VBA minimize overpayments and deter fraud and abuse.
The legal authority to conduct this match is 38 U.S.C. 5106, which requires any Federal department or agency to provide VA such information as VA requests for the purposes of determining eligibility for benefits, or verifying other information with respect to payment of benefits.
The VA records involved in the match are in “Compensation, Pension and Education and Rehabilitation Records—VA (58 VA 21/22/28),” a system of records which was first published at 41 FR 9294 (March 3, 1976), amended and republished in its entirety at 77 FR 42593 (July 19, 2012).
The IRS records consist of information from the system records identified as will extract return information with respect to unearned income of the VBA applicant or beneficiary and (when applicable) of such individual's spouse from the Information Return Master File (IRMF), Treasury/IRS 22.061, at 80 FR 54081-082 (September 8, 2015).
In accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a (o)(2) and (r), copies of the agreement are being sent to both Houses of Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is provided in accordance with the provisions of Privacy Act of 1974 as amended by Public Law 100-503.
IRS will extract return information with respect to unearned income of the VBA applicant or beneficiary and (when applicable) of such individual's spouse from the Information Return Master File (IRMF), Treasury/IRS 22.061, as published at 80 FR 54081-082 (September 8, 2015).
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John Oswalt, Executive Director for Privacy, Department of Veterans Affairs approved this document on March 7, 2018 for publication.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Ariel Pereira, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2017.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from October 1, 2017 through December 30, 2017. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2017) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2018), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
In accordance with 24 CFR 58.1(d), the OEE submits that there is good cause for waiving the second sentence of 24 CFR 58.22(a) in that:
(1) The above project will further the HUD mission. It will advance HUD program goals to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities. The project will remove blighted structures from the community and reduce the risk to public health from soil contamination left by previous uses.
(2) No HUD funds were committed or spent. CPD staff confirmed that no HUD funds have been drawn down by the grantees for projects.
(3) Based on the environmental assessment conducted, reviewed, and approved by the City of Eugene, Oregon and the City of Springfield, Oregon and the HUD field inspection, there is agreement that no adverse environmental impacts exist.
(4) The State Historic Preservation Officer determined in November 2014, that the demolition of the existing home on the property did not represent an adverse effect on a historic property.
(5) The staff of the Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County and the Cities of Springfield and Eugene have attended training by the Regional Environmental Officer for Region 10 to better understand the role of environmental reviews in the grantmaking process.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The city of Pasadena, California, requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.500(d)(2)(i)(C) for its Fiscal Year 2012 HOME expenditure deadline to provide additional time to expend HOME funds it recently repaid to its HOME account and unexpected funds it received as program income.
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
| 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 |